Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by First Lady

He joined Twitter in Feb 2011 a little more than 14 days ago.

Fair enough, the posts I could load only went back to October 19th and all of them since then were about this occupy movement.

Aside from that even IF he were doing this to further his political aspirations; what is the issue with that, so long as it's something he believes in?

That's fine, if that's what he believes in then go right ahead. My comments were a follow-up to the exchange you had with Silver on a previous page of this thread.

Silver: Do you honestly believe forcibly removing them is a good idea or does it play into your political aspirations to oppose nenshi's strategy?
You: What aspirations would those be?

If you (and by extension, your husband) have political aspirations, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but don't play stupid and pretend the two of you just happen to be taking this particular stand on this particular issue solely because it's important to you, and not because it's a timely opportunity to stir up a foundation of support.

[Misterpants]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Actually your momma generously donated the middle of her bed

Haha, she always did go for the raving lunatic type!

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

If you (and by extension, your husband) have political aspirations, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but don't play stupid and pretend the two of you just happen to be taking this particular stand on this particular issue solely because it's important to you, and not because it's a timely opportunity to stir up a foundation of support.

I've been open and honest. You refuse to believe that.

You use words like "stupid" and "pretend". And people wonder why so few get involved politically.

[malcolmk14]

First Lady: I hope my posts aren't coming off too harsh, I'm legitimately interested in your position on this issue. My language can occasionally be taken as insensitive, that's not my intent.

Could you please explain how the occupy movement has tangibly affected yours or your husbands day-to-day life in a negative way? Furthermore, I feel you failed to deliver a reasonable alternative to just letting it play out and ignoring the 'protesters'. Along with a few others in this thread, I am of the belief that simply packing up their tents and taking away their belongings is not a fair solution. If this is indeed an issue that you two feel strongly about, and this is not just a convenient matter to oppose Nenshi's views on, that should not be too difficult.

[Regular_John]

Alright I had said I wasn't going to comment on #OccupyCalgary today, but this article/editorial brings up a valid point regarding the bylaws not being enforced on the Occupy Campers.

Calgary street preacher smells bias in the city’s unwillingness to deal with occupiers

The man at the table is Artur Pawlowski. He is the preacher who runs Calgary’s Street Church. He does this a lot: sermonizing to the city’s scruffier elements — the homeless, the drug addicts, the alcoholics and the drifters. They know him. Four times a week he sets up shop, just across the street, on the steps of City Hall and cooks meals and dispenses clothing, along with sermons, to the needy....

... For the past six years the city has hit him with injunctions, fines and arrests. He posts copies of the tickets on his Street Church website; they go on for pages. Police have confiscated his signs and his Bibles. He’s moved to the steps of city hall in protest, after being driven out of the needle parks and underpasses where he used to minister to dealers and prostitutes.

If you've ever seen/heard Artur Pawlowski downtown he's abrasive & obtuse, he's been arrested, fined and ticketed a number of times for crossing the line between his own freedom of speech and the rights of the public.

I don't think it has anything to do with his religion as he suggest, but it's a pretty glaring difference when one person has the laws applied rigidly to his actions while another goes unpunished.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

First Lady: I hope my posts aren't coming off too harsh, I'm legitimately interested in your position on this issue. My language can occasionally be taken as insensitive, that's not my intent.

Don't worry, I have thick skin. Thanks in part to CP.

Could you please explain how the occupy movement has tangibly affected yours or your husbands day-to-day life in a negative way?

It doesn't. Does that preclude us from speaking out?

Furthermore, I feel you failed to deliver a reasonable alternative to just letting it play out and ignoring the 'protesters'. Along with a few others in this thread, I am of the belief that simply packing up their tents and taking away their belongings is not a fair solution. If this is indeed an issue that you two feel strongly about, and this is not just a convenient matter to oppose Nenshi's views on, that should not be too difficult.

I haven't claimed to have all the solutions or even the right ones.

I'm of the opinion this should never have been allowed to occur in first place.

Nenshi showed weakness (IMO) and they have taken advantage of that.

I think one of the things that needs to be communicated to them (and I've tried); is that they can still protest from 6 AM to 11 PM EVERY DAY.

[woob]

No offence, First Lady, but that reply made me think of replies politicians give when asked a specific, pointed question: They don't really answer the question, but just provide replies to make it seem like they answered it.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by First Lady

It doesn't. Does that preclude us from speaking out?

Of course it doesn't, but it certainly would not hurt your husband's ethos to claim that this is an issue he feels very strongly about and display some sort of connection or viable explanation as to why he feels strongly about it. Simply saying, "because it's illegal", isn't good enough. Lots of things are illegal, why does this issue in particular resonate with him?

I haven't claimed to have all the solutions or even the right ones.

I'm of the opinion this should never have been allowed to occur in first place.

Nenshi showed weakness (IMO) and they have taken advantage of that.

And there's the logos part of the argument. Okay, so it wasn't "handled" in a swift and ruthless manner (how would you have handled it, exactly?). But the issue here is what to do now. Without providing any logical explanation of how to deal with it beyond wrapping up their tents and booting them out, you are coming from a very weak position which makes it difficult for people to get on board.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Of course it doesn't, but it certainly would not hurt your husband's ethos to claim that this is an issue he feels very strongly about and display some sort of connection or viable explanation as to why he feels strongly about it. Simply saying, "because it's illegal", isn't good enough. Lots of things are illegal, why does this issue in particular resonate with him?

I can't speak for him. For me it's about following laws. I'm a stickler, as was seen a while back in the tax evasion thread.

And there's the logos part of the argument. Okay, so it wasn't "handled" in a swift and ruthless manner (how would you have handled it, exactly?). But the issue here is what to do now. Without providing any logical explanation of how to deal with it beyond wrapping up their tents and booting them out, you are coming from a very weak position which makes it difficult for people to get on board.

Ruthless isn't the word I would use, but yes not let them set up tents in first place.

Like I said I don't have all the answers. Waiting for weather change seems like an even weaker position to me.

[First Lady]

Olympic Plaza protesters derail talks to end St. Patrick's park camp

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ol...#ixzz1cagxDjU0

Sad development.

Quote from Tim Richter:

Best bit: protester w/home in $300 of MEC gear telling guy homeless 10 yrs camping all winter wld b easy

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

(snip) .... wrapping up their tents and booting them out

I could live with that personally. Every night you allow them to stay legitimizes (even if it's only in their heads) their OVERNIGHT occupation of the Plaza.

Our Mayor will never act against these guys. I don't think he has it in him.

If the twits camping out down there figure out a way to brave -20 degree temps, I don't think Nenshi has a back up plan.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Like I said I don't have all the answers. Waiting for weather change seems like an even weaker position to me.

We have established that you don't have all the answers. Actually, I believe we have established that you don't have any answers at all, other than "don't let it happen in the first place".

Hey, First Lady, what should George Bush have done about 9/11 and terrorism? Well that's simple, Malcolm, just don't let it happen in the first place.

What about world hunger? Don't let it happen in the first place. AIDS in Africa? Just don't let it happen in the first place.

The conflict in the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is coming to a head at the United Nations, First Lady, what do you recommend we do? Easy, don't let it happen in the first place.

I know those are not really fair parallels to make, but I'm trying to get you to arrive at a point. The occupy protests have happened, the tents are set up, the campers are there. If you're going to make such a fuss about removing them, be prepared to tell us how.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

We have established that you don't have all the answers. Actually, I believe we have established that you don't have any answers at all, other than "don't let it happen in the first place".

Hey, First Lady, what should George Bush have done about 9/11 and terrorism? Well that's simple, Malcolm, just don't let it happen in the first place.

What about world hunger? Don't let it happen in the first place. AIDS in Africa? Just don't let it happen in the first place.

The conflict in the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is coming to a head at the United Nations, First Lady, what do you recommend we do? Easy, don't let it happen in the first place.

I know those are not really fair parallels to make, but I'm trying to get you to arrive at a point. The occupy protests have happened, the tents are set up, the campers are there. If you're going to make such a fuss about removing them, be prepared to tell us how.

Oh I see. "I" have to come up with all the answers. Yet the people protesting don't have to come up with any. In fact they can outright turn down solutions.

Gotcha.

[woob]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh I see. "I" have to come up with all the answers. Yet the people protesting don't have to come up with any. In fact they can outright turn down solutions.

Gotcha.

Wow.. You really are into politics, aren't you?

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh I see. "I" have to come up with all the answers. Yet the people protesting don't have to come up with any. In fact they can outright turn down solutions.

Gotcha.

That's not what I am saying at all. You don't have to do anything, until you poke your nose into the debate with a vested personal interest in the outcome. Then the onus is on you to demonstrate why that debate is important to you. I'm not coming up with any answers, because I don't believe it is my place to dictate what should be important to someone else.

I can't believe you don't see that by coming in guns blazing with no tangible solutions or explanations, like what Cory Morgan is doing on Twitter and his blog and you are doing here, your position is fundamentally no stronger than those so-called scruffy hipsters and bums in Olympic Plaza, they just happen to be breaking a by-law.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh I see. "I" have to come up with all the answers. Yet the people protesting don't have to come up with any. In fact they can outright turn down solutions.

Gotcha.

Well, much like the protesters, you've shown an ability to point out perceived problems but completely punted on how to deal with those problems. You don't have to come up with a solution, but it would give your stance some semblance of legitimacy if you would at least make an attempt. It's quite easy to point at something and say 'somebody should really deal with that', it's much harder to actually deal with it.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh I see. "I" have to come up with all the answers. Yet the people protesting don't have to come up with any. In fact they can outright turn down solutions.

Gotcha.

Well we all think they're morons because they can't articulate their position past loud, meaningless bellyaching...

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

That's not what I am saying at all. You don't have to do anything, until you poke your nose into the debate with a vested personal interest in the outcome. Then the onus is on you to demonstrate why that debate is important to you. I'm not coming up with any answers, because I don't believe it is my place to dictate what should be important to someone else.

I can't believe you don't see that by coming in guns blazing with no tangible solutions or explanations, like what Cory Morgan is doing on Twitter and his blog and you are doing here, your position is fundamentally no stronger than those so-called scruffy hipsters and bums in Olympic Plaza, they just happen to be breaking a by-law.

I've already stated the protesters are free to demonstrate every day. That's not good enough for them.

Tim Richter went down personally to offer a solution to the St Pat group and the Plaza group intervened. They don't want a solution.

You don't like my approach or suggestions, I get that.

I can't change how you think. I've failed at opening your eyes and I'm okay with that too.

Many have contacted Cory and I with a great deal of thanks for verbalizing what they could not and for taking action when they didn't know what direction to go.

So really your frustration with me is of no consequence.


Now, if you will excuse me, I have to bow out for a bit.... need to have supper before Cory goes on Alberta Primetime. Will catch up on thread later.

[malcolmk14]

I should apologize for two things - going into attack mode so quickly on First Lady, I don't know if I gave you enough of a chance to defend your position and explain, so I'm sorry about that.

Also, I'm probably guilty of blurring the lines a little between yours and Cory's positions. For the sake of this discussion I've been lumping you in together and it's likely that you both don't actually share the exact same view on the matter. One thing you do agree on though is that the protesters must be removed swiftly and that is the part of your position that I am seeking more clarification on.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Many have contacted Cory and I with a great deal of thanks for verbalizing what they could not and for taking action when they didn't know what direction to go.

That is great, and I am glad for you both that you were able to reach some people with your message. Consider that a small swell of support does not necessarily represent the majority.

Waiting the protesters out might not be right or wrong, but it's certainly the most prudent political strategy, for now.