LOL @ Boomers

• Con_Alma

  dlazz;1476660 wrote:Seems doubtful at this point

  I'm tending to agree seeing how no one has offered any possibilities.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476655 wrote:I try and learn by asking questions.
  
  You think I'm a boomer??? :laugh:
  
  I couldn't care less if the whiner generation figures it out or not. I am inquiring to see if I can learn something.

  My apologies for labeling you a boomer. I realize that is a great offense given that the Boomers will go down in history as the worst generation directly responsible for the destruction of the world's greatest economic super power. Thank goodness we have the whiner generation to bring us to economic nirvana afterwards. This gives us the opportunity to be labeled "The greatest greatest generation" which is the highest honor.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476676 wrote:My apologies for labeling you a boomer. I realize that is a great offense given that the Boomers will go down in history as the worst generation directly responsible for the destruction of the world's greatest economic super power. Thank goodness we have the whiner generation to bring us to economic nirvana afterwards. This gives us the opportunity to be labeled "The greatest greatest generation" which is the highest honor.

  
  It's not offensive to me. You can't offend me....even by trying to label me...no matter the label. Call me whatever you choose.
  
  Thinking you knew what generation I was born into is what made me chuckle.
• BoatShoes

  believer;1475482 wrote:fify

  Where are you encountering this swath of 20 somethings that think this way besides your imagination?
  
  "Old man look at your life, I'm a lot like you were" as the song goes.
  
  I don't even get where this idea comes from. Are kids considered "spoiled" in the aggregate because they grew up in a society that had double the wealth of the economy of their parents? So, kids experienced some of the net benefits of economic growth and they are de facto "brats"? I just don't see it. I see kids expecting a future where they're going to work a long time, probably never buy a house, maybe not have kids and all in all not having the general hope that they will live the kind of suburban, bustling life they had growing up in the 90's.
• sleeper

  

  BoatShoes;1476690 wrote:Where are you encountering this swath of 20 somethings that think this way besides your imagination?
  
  "Old man look at your life, I'm a lot like you were" as the song goes.
  
  I don't even get where this idea comes from. Are kids considered "spoiled" in the aggregate because they grew up in a society that had double the wealth of the economy of their parents? So, kids experienced some of the net benefits of economic growth and they are de facto "brats"? I just don't see it. I see kids expecting a future where they're going to work a long time, probably never buy a house, maybe not have kids and all in all not having the general hope that they will live the kind of suburban, bustling life they had growing up in the 90's.

  I also don't know any 20 somethings that are like the ones believer describes. Even the ones that still live at home with their parents after college working their minimum wage jobs only talk about how they wish they could make enough money to move out of their parents house. Buying a house, car, or having kids for them is not even in the discussion if they can't even pay for anything besides student loan debt.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476682 wrote:It's not offensive to me. You can't offend me....even by trying to label me...no matter the label. Call me whatever you choose.
  
  Thinking you knew what generation I was born into is what made me chuckle.

  You can join our generation. Welcome to the "whiner generation".
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476722 wrote:You can join our generation. Welcome to the "whiner generation".

  I respectfully decline. Thanks for the offer.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476729 wrote:I respectfully decline. Thanks for the offer.

  We really didn't want you anyways; I was just being nice.
• Con_Alma

  No need to be nice. I'd prefer truthfulness instead....but you'll be who you are no matter my preference.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476749 wrote:No need to be nice. I'd prefer truthfulness instead....but you'll be who you are no matter my preference.

  As evidenced by this thread, your generation cannot handle truthfulness.
• Con_Alma

  ???The whole generation cant handel truthfullness? What generation is that?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476758 wrote:???The whole generation cant handel truthfullness? What generation is that?

  Yours.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476759 wrote:Yours.

  ..and you know that the whole generation cant handle truthfulness? My, that's an impressive generalization seeing how you don't even know which generation that is. It's not surprising though.
  
  Even so, it still doesn't negate the fact that such truthfulness is my preference.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476763 wrote:..and you know that the whole generation cant handle truthfulness? My, that's an impressive generalization seeing how you don't even know which generation that is. It's not surprising though.
  
  Even so, it still doesn't negate the fact that such truthfulness is my preference.

  I know this for a fact. You may only prefer truthfulness but only if that truthfulness supports your own conclusions. This is typical of your generation.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476770 wrote:I know this for a fact. You may only prefer truthfulness but only if that truthfulness supports your own conclusions. This is typical of your generation.

  Without knowing the generation can you help me understand the how typical can be determined?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476771 wrote:Without knowing the generation can you help me understand the how typical can be determined?

  Absolutely. I divide the generations into 3 groups.
  
  1) Boomers(those 40+)
  2) Whiner Boomers(Those 30-40)
  3) Whiner Non-Boomers(Those < 30)
  
  Groups 1 and 2 share the same personal characteristics with the only difference being that those 30 - 40 in age are just as screwed as the "Whiner Non-Boomer" generation. Given that you have children and that you speak with a air of wisdom, I'm guessing you are not in group #3. Therefore, typical is established using this thread as evidence and labeling you in either group 1 or 2(you said it was okay to label you).
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476777 wrote:Absolutely. I divide the generations into 3 groups.
  
  1) Boomers(those 40+)
  2) Whiner Boomers(Those 30-40)
  3) Whiner Non-Boomers(Those < 30)
  
  Groups 1 and 2 share the same personal characteristics with the only difference being that those 30 - 40 in age are just as screwed as the "Whiner Non-Boomer" generation. Given that you have children and that you speak with a air of wisdom, I'm guessing you are not in group #3. Therefore, typical is established using this thread as evidence and labeling you in either group 1 or 2(you said it was okay to label you).

  Sure. You can label me anything you like...even if it's inaccurate. Lol Your definitions aren't exactly accurate as defined and accepted by the masses....but that's O.K.. It lends to your definitive, overzealous persona. Just so you know, people over 40 aren't necessarily Boomers.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476781 wrote:Sure. You can label me anything you like...even if it's inaccurate. Lol Your definitions aren't exactly accurate as defined and accepted by the masses....but that's O.K.. It lends to your definitive, overzealous persona. Just so you know, people over 40 aren't necessarily Boomers.

  Are you not in any of these groups?
  
  Once again, thank you for confirming that I can label you anything I like. I have done so as noted above.
• sleeper

  

  Also I find your contention that "people over 40 aren't necessarily Boomers" to be racist. Let me guess, your chart would look something like this.
  
  Black people
  1. Boomers(those unborn +)
  
  White People
  1. Non-Boomers(all)
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476783 wrote:Are you not in any of these groups?
  
  Once again, thank you for confirming that I can label you anything I like. I have done so as noted above.

  My age is, yes. ... and you're welcome.
  
  Your inaccuracies of definitions continues to entertain me. ...as if an 80 year old is a Baby Boomer! ....but they're over 40 right?....and that's one of your groups. :rolleyes:
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476785 wrote:Also I find your contention that "people over 40 aren't necessarily Boomers" to be racist. Let me guess, your chart would look something like this.
  
  Black people
  1. Boomers(those unborn +)
  
  White People
  1. Non-Boomers(all)

  
  So be it. Your findings are funny. I don't have a "chart". The one accepted by and used by the masses is the "chart" that when compared to yours highlights your humorous failure.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476789 wrote:So be it. Your findings are funny. I don't have a "chart". The one accepted by and used by the masses is the "chart" that when compared to yours highlights your humorous failure.

  You mean the same masses that voted Barack Obama to POTUS twice?
  
  "What's always right isn't always popular and what's always popular isn't always right" - MLK
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476790 wrote:You mean the same masses that voted Barack Obama to POTUS twice?
  
  "What's always right isn't always popular and what's always popular isn't always right" - MLK

  They would make up part of the masses, yes. Keep in mind not many people actually voted. In addition, I don't think even 1/2 of those who voted, voted for the the current President. Regardless, yes those people are included in the masses.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476797 wrote:They would make up part of the masses, yes. Keep in mind not many people actually voted. In addition, I don't think even 1/2 of those who voted, voted for the the current President. Regardless, yes those people are included in the masses.

  Very hypocritical of you then. On one hand you support the decisions of the masses and how they label generations but on the other hand you don't support the masses electing Obama to the POTUS.
  
  Inconsistent much?
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476801 wrote:Very hypocritical of you then. On one hand you support the decisions of the masses and how they label generations but on the other hand you don't support the masses electing Obama to the POTUS.
  
  Inconsistent much?

  I support neither. My support nor lack there of changes neither of the two items above.
  
  I don't support the masses as it relates to the definitions of generations. I referenced their acceptance of such definition to give a more descriptive explanation of such definition.
  
  ...but it's O.K. You should continue to include all 80 and 90 year olds as Baby Boomers so it lends to you being more assertive with your generalizations.:thumbup: