Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Don't feed the troll.

Troll: Anyone who disagrees with the entrenched orthodoxy enforced by a certain cabal on this forum.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Troll: Anyone who disagrees with the entrenched orthodoxy enforced by a certain cabal on this forum.

Which is/who are?

Anyone, for example, who dares to even agree with the likes of Mario Cuomo and Joe Biden on the abortion issue - as I do (see my latest post on the appropriate thread).

And speaking of Cuomo and Biden, how about all of you anti-religious zealots adopting the same position; namely, that you are against religion personally but don't feel the need to force your beliefs on others?

A Nativity scene in a shopping mall is not the same thing as a swastika; and "In G-d We Trust" on our currency is not the same thing as a Confederate flag.

While I wouldn't call Cynic Hero 86 a "troll" so much as a whacky one-trick pony (most of his posts being some long wall-of-text paragraph about how "only restorationism" can solve whatever problem, and detailing a Sparta-like ("from birth") militarist re-programming of our country's people and huge continent-conquesting wars and such)--I mean, maybe he is posting that for troll-like purposes (to get a rise out of us) rather than being as dedicated to the idea as he seems to sound, but who knows? Anyway....

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Anyone, for example, who dares to even agree with the likes of Mario Cuomo and Joe Biden on the abortion issue - as I do (see my latest post on the appropriate thread).

And speaking of Cuomo and Biden, how about all of you anti-religious zealots adopting the same position; namely, that you are against religion personally but don't feel the need to force your beliefs on others?

A Nativity scene in a shopping mall is not the same thing as a swastika; and "In G-d We Trust" on our currency is not the same thing as a Confederate flag.

...this has nothing to do with Cynic Hero's crackpot (okay, maybe I should be nice and say "outlandish") prescription for the US. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone here ("cabal" members or not, whoever they are) call you a troll, '58, and you certainly are not. You argue your beliefs and perspective relatively reasonably I think, and though a lot of people here may disagree with your perspective... well that happens, don't feel bad.

As for there being a "cabal" here that "enforces" certain views... come on. No one has such power. Sure, sometimes it may feel uncomfortable being in a minority view-wise on a forum, and facing arguments from a lot of people, but that's not the same as being "enforced" against--especially since no one is calling you a troll or anything, and people here seem to at least respect you as a fellow poster, as I do. You reason your arguments fairly well, don't come off as arrogant or preachy, don't claim to know more than you do, aren't insulting, etc. You're pretty old-school, and genuine, and do at least present some things that other progressives may want to keep in mind for practical reasons if any, because a lot of "Middle America" does have similar sentiments. That last paragraph above especially, I have long agreed with... sometimes some progressives get way too worked up over little things like that, to the point where they might "win" a Pyrrhic victory or two on those little issues and attrition themselves so that they lose more important battles, and possibily the whole war if they're not careful. One thing Xers tend to know: how to pick their battles--and it seems you Jonesers for the most part know this as well.

Anyway, you're alright in my book at least, whatever disagreements we may have. I think most here regard you similarly.

Anyone, for example, who dares to even agree with the likes of Mario Cuomo and Joe Biden on the abortion issue - as I do (see my latest post on the appropriate thread).

And speaking of Cuomo and Biden, how about all of you anti-religious zealots adopting the same position; namely, that you are against religion personally but don't feel the need to force your beliefs on others?

A Nativity scene in a shopping mall is not the same thing as a swastika; and "In G-d We Trust" on our currency is not the same thing as a Confederate flag.

Seriously, guy? Calm down. People disagreeing with you does not constitute persecution. Nobody is throwing you to the lions. As to Nativity scenes and in God We Trust, or even Confederate Flags and Swastikas for that matter, don't really give a shit either way. Personally, as long as you aren't hurting anyone or demanding public subsidies, you should be free to do what you want where you want. I'd just like to see us move on from this "War on Christmas" bullshit on both sides and actually, you know, do something productive. Just cut the culture wars crap altogether. You mind your business and I'll mind mine.

As for my response to Cynic, what are you complaining about now? I just asked him to justify his weird, creepy, fascist screed. And no, I'm not just throwing the term "fascism" about. Corporatism, military expansionism, romantic appeals to an idealized past, a demand for total unity, all of those things pretty much defined Axis ideology in the 30s and 40s.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Seriously, guy? Calm down. People disagreeing with you does not constitute persecution. Nobody is throwing you to the lions. As to Nativity scenes and in God We Trust, or even Confederate Flags and Swastikas for that matter, don't really give a shit either way. Personally, as long as you aren't hurting anyone or demanding public subsidies, you should be free to do what you want where you want. I'd just like to see us move on from this "War on Christmas" bullshit on both sides and actually, you know, do something productive. Just cut the culture wars crap altogether. You mind your business and I'll mind mine.

I once got a dollar bill in change from a store's automatic register, the bill defaced with a message reading "Save America -- Join the Ku Klux Klan (phone number and website)". I took the bill to the main cashier for exchange with my explanation. (There is a Klan group with headquarters about 50 miles away from where I live. I figure that the group had gotten dollar bills, defaced them, and used them to pick up goodies at various stores.

As for my response to Cynic, what are you complaining about now? I just asked him to justify his weird, creepy, fascist screed. And no, I'm not just throwing the term "fascism" about. Corporatism, military expansionism, romantic appeals to an idealized past, a demand for total unity, all of those things pretty much defined Axis ideology in the 30s and 40s.

It also describes some Americans today. American fascism does not need flowing robes and burning crosses or brown shirts with swastika An idealized past? Sure -- but distorted into a parody of the original. Nazis of the 1930s tried to twist historical figures like Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington into fascists. Talk about perverted!

Originally Posted by Alioth68

While I wouldn't call Cynic Hero 86 a "troll" so much as a whacky one-trick pony (most of his posts being some long wall-of-text paragraph about how "only restorationism" can solve whatever problem, and detailing a Sparta-like ("from birth") militarist re-programming of our country's people and huge continent-conquesting wars and such)--I mean, maybe he is posting that for troll-like purposes (to get a rise out of us) rather than being as dedicated to the idea as he seems to sound, but who knows? Anyway....



...this has nothing to do with Cynic Hero's crackpot (okay, maybe I should be nice and say "outlandish") prescription for the US. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone here ("cabal" members or not, whoever they are) call you a troll, '58, and you certainly are not. You argue your beliefs and perspective relatively reasonably I think, and though a lot of people here may disagree with your perspective... well that happens, don't feel bad.

If the founding fathers were alive today, and posting on this forum, they would be restorationists.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If the founding fathers were alive today, and posting on this forum, they would be restorationists.

Okay, let's entertain for a moment your falling back on our iconic founding fathers to somehow make your arguments for you: why do you imagine "the founding fathers" would ascribe to "restorationism" as you describe it? What thoughts, deeds, and philosophies of theirs which we know of, could be extrapolated to point to their plausible support of it?

I do know, for one thing, that by and large they were very skeptical of the idea of even having a standing army. As Madison put it,

Originally Posted by James Madison, Constitutional Convention, 1787

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.

No, I instead imagine they are rolling in their graves over the huge Military-Industrial Complex we have amassed at present, and the continual wars amidst which "no nation could preserve its freedom" as Madison also predicted; certainly a standing army of 20-50 million, and a society where people are trained "from birth"* in military defense in a "military civic order", and a huge worldwide missionary war of "vassalization" and conquest like that which you propose which would realistically last at least a few decades, would all be anathema to their ideas and prescriptions for a free republic.

I think they'd also have a lot to say about imposing "universal Christianity" on the populace as well. But go on, detail why you think they'd be supportive of the ideas you propose, since you've invoked these icons as if they somehow boster (or rescue?) your argument. This should be interesting.

* Also, flesh out how children would be "trained from birth to defend the nation". If I had a son and I didn't want him to have anything to do with any military indoctrination so long as he was under my roof, would that son be taken away from me and raised in some state-controlled creche or something? Are you hailing back to some romaticization of the Spartan tradition? Or what? However you're proposing this, it sure doesn't sound like the ideas of liberty the founders seemed to have in mind.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If the founding fathers were alive today, and posting on this forum, they would be restorationists.

If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd totally be freaked out. The vehicles, the rumbles, the noise, the lights -- electricity! It would completely overwhelm them. Even the smells would be completely different; gasoline exhaust rather than unwashed gamey human odor.

Not to mention what they would make of men walking around with baggy trousers, women in shorts, and both wearing flip flops. Tattoos? Ear piercings? People walking around talking to cell phones? Inter-racial couples?

The image boggles my mind!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If the founding fathers were alive today, and posting on this forum, they would be restorationists.

LOL

Yeah the spirit of 1776 was all about establishing a global empire.

You betcha.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

While I wouldn't call Cynic Hero 86 a "troll" so much as a whacky one-trick pony (most of his posts being some long wall-of-text paragraph about how "only restorationism" can solve whatever problem, and detailing a Sparta-like ("from birth") militarist re-programming of our country's people and huge continent-conquesting wars and such)--I mean, maybe he is posting that for troll-like purposes (to get a rise out of us) rather than being as dedicated to the idea as he seems to sound, but who knows? Anyway....



...this has nothing to do with Cynic Hero's crackpot (okay, maybe I should be nice and say "outlandish") prescription for the US. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone here ("cabal" members or not, whoever they are) call you a troll, '58, and you certainly are not. You argue your beliefs and perspective relatively reasonably I think, and though a lot of people here may disagree with your perspective... well that happens, don't feel bad.

As for there being a "cabal" here that "enforces" certain views... come on. No one has such power. Sure, sometimes it may feel uncomfortable being in a minority view-wise on a forum, and facing arguments from a lot of people, but that's not the same as being "enforced" against--especially since no one is calling you a troll or anything, and people here seem to at least respect you as a fellow poster, as I do. You reason your arguments fairly well, don't come off as arrogant or preachy, don't claim to know more than you do, aren't insulting, etc. You're pretty old-school, and genuine, and do at least present some things that other progressives may want to keep in mind for practical reasons if any, because a lot of "Middle America" does have similar sentiments. That last paragraph above especially, I have long agreed with... sometimes some progressives get way too worked up over little things like that, to the point where they might "win" a Pyrrhic victory or two on those little issues and attrition themselves so that they lose more important battles, and possibily the whole war if they're not careful. One thing Xers tend to know: how to pick their battles--and it seems you Jonesers for the most part know this as well.

Anyway, you're alright in my book at least, whatever disagreements we may have. I think most here regard you similarly.

I'm not accusing anyone of calling me a "troll." Just a "weirdo" - but if we really are in 4T I wouldn't even be regarded as that.

The problem with liberalism and conservatism is that neither understand human nature. It is in our base nature to reward kindness with cruelty and cruelty with kindness and respect. For example we do not have to destroy islamism to defend western civilization, simply nuking tehran damascus and mecca and medina and elsewhere would instill respect for the US in the islamic world. Why did nazis brutalize and kill jews, because they knew the jews would not fight back, why did al-qaeda launch escalating attacks up to 9/11, because they did not think the US would retaliate. Even a nazi would embrace jews if he knew his family would die if he tried to threaten the lives of the jews. Restorationism would end the terrorist threat by carrying out a pacification of the middle east with our forces using rules of engagement that are based on restorationist principles.

I'd place the probability of war between the U.S. and Iran at 60%, rising to as near as makes no difference from 100% if the Republicans win the 2016 Presidential election.

Yet beware of the danger from within - if sowers of racial discord like Bill O'Reilly continue to flap their gums, the possibility of African-Americans doing what the Irish did in 1916, the Ukranians did in 1941 (not to mention the Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Kosovar Albanians in that same year), or the Sicilians did in 1943, becomes very, very real.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I'd place the probability of war between the U.S. and Iran at 60%, rising to as near as makes no difference from 100% if the Republicans win the 2016 Presidential election.

Yet beware of the danger from within - if sowers of racial discord like Bill O'Reilly continue to flap their gums, the possibility of African-Americans doing what the Irish did in 1916, the Ukranians did in 1941 (not to mention the Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Kosovar Albanians in that same year), or the Sicilians did in 1943, becomes very, very real.

It is the old southern/racist wing of the gop that is divisive. When people say the GOP is divisive, what they should be saying is that it is not the entire GOP that is divisive; but specifically the racist wing that joined after the dixiecrats were kicked out of the democratic party. The neocon policies on the other hand were in fact correct, the screw-up was that they were carried out under incompetent leadership. Obama is doing the right thing, and also continuing the bush policies but in a more rational fashion. The tea party is too stupid to realize that they are in fact the perfect instrument which a foreign power could use to destablize america.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

It is the old southern/racist wing of the gop that is divisive. When people say the GOP is divisive, what they should be saying is that it is not the entire GOP that is divisive; but specifically the racist wing that joined after the dixiecrats were kicked out of the democratic party. The neocon policies on the other hand were in fact correct, the screw-up was that they were carried out under incompetent leadership. Obama is doing the right thing, and also continuing the bush policies but in a more rational fashion. The tea party is too stupid to realize that they are in fact the perfect instrument which a foreign power could use to destablize america.

But whose "fault" the racial divide is doesn't really matter - and something that does matter is the Boomers' de-stigmatization of treason during the 2T.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But whose "fault" the racial divide is doesn't really matter - and something that does matter is the Boomers' de-stigmatization of treason during the 2T.

But come the 3T, didn't the Boomers re-stigmatize much of what they de-stigmatized during the 2T? Not only that, but didn't they end up stigmatizing things that weren't so before--such as public smoking, drunk driving, sexual harassment, and animal mistreatment?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

It is in our base nature to reward kindness with cruelty

Whose nature? Not mine, and I'm human. When someone is kind to me, I appreciate it and am inspired to return the kindness. I think most people are generally that way--at least I've found most people who I'm kind to appreciate it, and if they were angry or moody at me before my kindness has often calmed them down some.

It may be in the nature of a sociopath or psychopath to respond to kindness with contempt or worse, but are our social norms supposed to cater to the sensibilities of sociopaths and psychopaths? I do think it's telling what you think is "human nature". (I actually think that it is in "human nature" to be able to choose how you will act--as humans have free will.)

and cruelty with kindness and respect.

Again, that's not the general "human nature" I observe in most people. Usually people respond to cruelty with resentment and/or seeking revenge or seeking to stop the person doing the cruelty. There may also be fear, but one should not confuse "fear" with "respect". (Some people may "turn the other cheek" and repay cruelty with kindness (as Jesus and some other spiritual leaders have taught), but they will also repay kindness with kindness--basically just be kind to everyone regardless--but that true discipline is a rare thing really, even if it's something to strive for).

For example we do not have to destroy islamism to defend western civilization, simply nuking tehran damascus and mecca and medina and elsewhere would instill respect for the US in the islamic world.

If we started a nuclear war, I guarantee we would look like monsters (to be loathed, and if possible stopped--not "respected") to most of the world and not just the Islamists. That is, if other powers don't continue it, and it ends up getting "finished" with most of the world as a smoldering radioactive waste dump with scavenging bands of us roaming here and there looking for uncontaminated water, where our nations used to be--and all our grand notions and ideals and high-minded patriotisms come to mean less than cockroach shit in that brave new world. Careful what you wish for, I think, is an understatement here.

Why did nazis brutalize and kill jews, because they knew the jews would not fight back

And because they were psychopaths, and/or following a psychopathic political ideology out of enforced conformity ("following orders") and/or moral cowardice. Certainly not something we should model ourselves or our own society on.

Most people don't go around brutalizing and killing people even when they know they won't fight back. Most people don't find pleasure in doing those things--so maybe you should speak for yourself rather than "human nature", huh?

why did al-qaeda launch escalating attacks up to 9/11, because they did not think the US would retaliate.

Actually it is very plausible that they did know we would "retaliate" for 9/11 (and that they were trying to egg us on to do so with the previous lesser attacks or attempted attacks). That we would retaliate in frenzied primal anger without much thought and end up getting stuck in the proverbial (and real) land wars in Asia, and squander our money and resources. Stuff right out of Sun Tzu actually.

Even a nazi would embrace jews if he knew his family would die if he tried to threaten the lives of the jews.

Plenty of women and children have died at the hands of Israelis and Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Do you see either in any meaningful way closer to "embracing" the other after many decades of this?

Bad analogy anyway--I suspect if the Jews merely had the capability to defend themselves with deadly force against the SS or Gestapo personnel rounding them up or herding them into the gas chambers, that would be enough. The Nazis planned ahead enough to enact laws disarming the Jewish population, sapping them of their personal and economic resources, as well as whipping up frenzied anger in their society against them and other groups labeled "enemy of the state". In short, they were bullies and cowards who systemically made sure the Jews could not feasibly resist, before doing their worst. Say what you will about the jihadists (I have plenty of contempt for them and their psychopathic tactics as individuals, although not for their kids who are just now innocently discovering the world--I pity them for the example their parents are setting), but they are not analogous to the Nazis in terms of being bullies, having far from the upper hand with the West, nor such systemic means of repression that the Nazis had and built. Totally different dynamics between internal repressions and external wars.

Restorationism would end the terrorist threat by carrying out a pacification of the middle east with our forces using rules of engagement that are based on restorationist principles.

Describe these "restorationist" rules of engagement. Is that which is sought to be "restored" good old fashioned primal, lizard-brained barbarism, and supposed "respect" for same? Do you imagine yourself thriving in such a world?

Oh, and still waiting for you to expound on why you think "our founding fathers" would be "restorationists" (as you use the word) today. And since you've mentioned "universal Christianity" as another goal of this "restorationism" in other posts about it, I'll add the question: do you think Jesus, if He were living on this Earth today and posting on this board, would be a "restorationist" and embrace the ideas and plan of action you describe? If you do, please reconcile why vis a vis His known teachings. Or is this "universal Christianity" merely a phony ploy to get certain people on board?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The problem with liberalism and conservatism is that neither understand human nature. It is in our base nature to reward kindness with cruelty and cruelty with kindness and respect.

Wrong. Human nature is extremely complex and often contradictory. The same culture that can produce Michael Harrington can also produce Charles Manson. Human nature is far from easy to generalize, which explains why its study is so much a part of the liberal arts that have proved extremely useful despite the intuitive assumptions by many that life can be reduced to statistical measures, the profit motive, and engineering.

"Our base nature" has all-too-often appeared... but on the whole cruelty has been met with resistance and kindness with acquiescence. People can choose between Good and Evil, and if they are to choose Good for reasons other than accident they must know not only the difference between Good and Evil and the consequences of involvement with Evil, but also have a valid interest in making the choice for Good.

For example we do not have to destroy islamism to defend western civilization, simply nuking tehran damascus and mecca and medina and elsewhere would instill respect for the US in the islamic world.

Wrong. Such would make the United States an Evil Empire in a struggle with Islam. Such would offend about every ally that we now have -- even countries such as Israel and India that struggle with terror by and from Muslims. Such mass murder would put us in the league with Nazi Germany. We would probably lose that war.

We are wiser to wait out the inevitable failure reactionary movements that use Islam as a pretext. Eventually those will lose their mass support. We cannot defeat Islam, but we can give Muslims access to liberalizing tendencies. If the Islamic world has incorporated Greek and Persian science it can incorporate the political wisdom of Locke and Jefferson -- and even pacifism.

Our war against Nazi Germany was a literal jihad.

Why did Nazis brutalize and kill Jews, because they knew the Jews would not fight back,

The Nazis took all of the means of fighting back from the Jews. They denied the Jews access to the media, effectively allowing the venomous hatred of Der Stuermer to prevail while Jews were unable to defend themselves from the calumnies levied at them. German Jews could have otherwise asserted that they were different only by religion... and that they were Germans -- indeed that the Germans were possibly the people most like Jews.

Nazis of course ruined the Jews economically and even denied them the right to keep dogs* (let alone guns). Nazis even punished Jews (before the Holocaust began in earnest) for reflexive self defense like protecting their heads from blows. Even when the Jews resisted the Nazis as in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising the Nazis failed to recognize any heroism in those Jews that they saw as the worst of criminals.

why did al-qaeda launch escalating attacks up to 9/11, because they did not think the US would retaliate.

Wrong. al-Qaeda leadership figured Dubya out well for incompetence, but misunderstood the American People. Like Fascists, al-Qaeda celebrated death and destruction. Bad idea.

Even a Nazi would embrace Jews if he knew his family would die if he tried to threaten the lives of the Jews.

Maybe. The Nazis on the whole were moral cowards who feared their own leaders and turned their enmity upon helpless people. But think of the real heroes of Germany -- those tragic figures of the failed plot of July 20, 1944. They did not fear retribution by the peoples that Hitler had slaughtered. They showed principle contrary to the Nazi rejection of all moral standards short of blind, uncritical obedience. Transcripts of the trials of some of them show that they faced death heroically, contradicting the abuse and humiliation of the judge who would have sentenced them to burning at the stake if such were available. Some turned on Hitler because of the Holocaust.

Restorationism would end the terrorist threat by carrying out a pacification of the middle east with our forces using rules of engagement that are based on restorationist principles.

That is the sort of "pacification" that the Third Reich imposed upon the non-Jewish segment of the Polish people. It did not succeed. Nazi requirements for occupation forces in Poland may have made the difference in some critical battlefield -- like Stalingrad.

Tell me Pbrower what is your opinion of what the outcome of the 4T would be if restorationism or something similar becomes the law of the land? Give me a picture of the world of say the next 2T in your opinion after a restorationist 4T for example, what countries would be the world powers? What areas of the world would be centers of trade?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd totally be freaked out. The vehicles, the rumbles, the noise, the lights -- electricity! It would completely overwhelm them. Even the smells would be completely different; gasoline exhaust rather than unwashed gamey human odor.

Not to mention what they would make of men walking around with baggy trousers, women in shorts, and both wearing flip flops. Tattoos? Ear piercings? People walking around talking to cell phones? Inter-racial couples?

The image boggles my mind!

Yeah, some of these things might even boggle my mind if I were transported to today from the 1950s!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The tea party is too stupid to realize that they are in fact the perfect instrument which a foreign power could use to destablize america.

This is really key. I also see factions such as white supremacists, so called "militias" and pretty much any other anti-government radicals being key recruitment targets of our enemies. Even the John Birch Society. If real war breaks out with another great power, I would keep very close tabs on any and all of the foregoing types of factions.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Tell me Pbrower what is your opinion of what the outcome of the 4T would be if restorationism or something similar becomes the law of the land? Give me a picture of the world of say the next 2T in your opinion after a restorationist 4T for example, what countries would be the world powers? What areas of the world would be centers of trade?

Ultimately, defeat. Consider that the Crisis-Era leadership would come under the judgment of those who overthrow the brutal regime, whether enemy powers or those Americans who try to rescue what they can after some coup against the totalitarian clique that brings America to the brink of ruin.

Nuking Mecca, Medina, Teheran, and Damascus might cause Muslims to nuke New York, Washington, Chicago, and Los Angeles as fitting retribution. Countries with large Muslim minorities like India and Russia and several of our NATO allies would have turned on us.

You have an ideology that has training based upon Plato's Republic with a hierarchy based upon merit, yet you ignore both the Parable of the Cave (in which Plato distinguishes between carefully-manipulated delusion in the form of a shadow-play and objective reality less overtly entertaining and requiring more effort t understand) and Plato's discussion of what constitutes justice and the imperative of competent leadership to promote it even if justice is inconvenient. You would be well advised to read or re-read Plato's Republic.

A section of America that comes under the rule of Muslims might be the sort of place in which those who have any desire to be anything other than "carriers of water and hewers of wood" would convert to Islam. Note well that the Turks quickly converted the land-holding aristocracies of the Balkans to Islam so that those land-holding aristocrats could remain land-holding aristocrats. People who own nothing could simply leave if they were devout Christians because they have nothing to lose.

We Americans generally have no national culture. A few civic rituals like the Fourth of July, to be sure... but if a part of America goes under the control of Russia, the Russians will have something to offer American-born youth. Contrast such people as the Poles who had a significant and sophisticated national culture to us -- the Poles could resist efforts to make Russians out of them. Japan? In its sector of occupation you would find children learning to write with brushes, folding paper into clever shapes, arranging flowers, and making rock gardens. About ten years after the occupation begins you would see blue-eyed blond girls in kimonos named "Sumiko" even if their surnames are "Flynn", "Schmidt", or "Kowalski". If India occupies Southern California, then expect "Hollywood" to imitate the style and ideology of films from "Bollywood".

That's before I discuss areas officially annexed to Mexico or established as buffer states. Mexico has a far stronger and better-defined culture than the US. Assimilate or leave if you are in Albuquerque, Dallas, Denver, Houston or Phoenix?

I could never predict what the world powers would be -- but one conspicuously absent would be the United States of America. It would be partitioned and occupied for a couple of decades. Lacking a real national culture (many of us love French Impressionist painting, classical music of the Austrian and German schools, Italian opera, and Russian literature) we would lack something that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese kept after defeat. Durer, Leonardo, and Hokusai were not the enemies of the United States.

With the talk now shifting to settling both the CR and debt-ceiling impasses concomitantly - within a few days of Oct. 17th - I figured that this is an awesome time to resurrect this discussion, since it offers the hope of actually pulling off this "double bargain."

In addition to my health care solution that, of course, has its own thread, the Republicans need to abandon chained CPI in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to raise the age for initial Social Security eligibility from 62 to three years before qualification for full eligibility, based on birth year. I realize that this sticks a huge rubber hose up me and my fellow Baby Busters - but hey, "taking one for the team" is nothing new to us; after all, we sent more of our generation to the morgue on 9/11 than any other single generation did.

And how about restoring the sequester cuts in exchange for a national "concealed carry" law that would invalidate New York's totalitarian Sullivan Law and all the other gun-grabbing measures on the books in various, virtually all liberal and (not at all coincidentally, say I) virtually all high-crime, states?

Continuing this theme, how about the passage of ENDA - the proposed federal anti-discrimination law protecting the LGBT community from discrimination in jobs, housing, etc. - in exchange for a green light for the Keystone XL pipeline?

I close my presentation with a riddle: What do Ariel Castro, Jared Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? Answer: They all pleaded guilty (or tried to in Holmes' case) in order to evade the death penalty - proving that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent. Therefore, I propose a federal death penalty (similar to the one that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will likely receive) for using a so-called "assault weapon" to kill two or more people concomitantly, along with a federal version of Florida's "10-20-Life" law, with the added caveat that the gun must have been brandished/fired in the course of committing some other felony, e.g. robbery, to prevent a redux of the Marissa Alexander case.

Let's stop bickering and get things done!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

With the talk now shifting to settling both the CR and debt-ceiling impasses concomitantly - within a few days of Oct. 17th - I figured that this is an awesome time to resurrect this discussion, since it offers the hope of actually pulling off this "double bargain."

In addition to my health care solution that, of course, has its own thread, the Republicans need to abandon chained CPI in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to raise the age for initial Social Security eligibility from 62 to three years before qualification for full eligibility, based on birth year. I realize that this sticks a huge rubber hose up me and my fellow Baby Busters - but hey, "taking one for the team" is nothing new to us; after all, we sent more of our generation to the morgue on 9/11 than any other single generation did.

And how about restoring the sequester cuts in exchange for a national "concealed carry" law that would invalidate New York's totalitarian Sullivan Law and all the other gun-grabbing measures on the books in various, virtually all liberal and (not at all coincidentally, say I) virtually all high-crime, states?

Continuing this theme, how about the passage of ENDA - the proposed federal anti-discrimination law protecting the LGBT community from discrimination in jobs, housing, etc. - in exchange for a green light for the Keystone XL pipeline?

I close my presentation with a riddle: What do Ariel Castro, Jared Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? Answer: They all pleaded guilty (or tried to in Holmes' case) in order to evade the death penalty - proving that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent. Therefore, I propose a federal death penalty (similar to the one that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will likely receive) for using a so-called "assault weapon" to kill two or more people concomitantly, along with a federal version of Florida's "10-20-Life" law, with the added caveat that the gun must have been brandished/fired in the course of committing some other felony, e.g. robbery, to prevent a redux of the Marissa Alexander case.

Let's stop bickering and get things done!

I would stand in line for two days ... oudoors ... in the rain ... in January to vote against every one of these ideas.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

With the talk now shifting to settling both the CR and debt-ceiling impasses concomitantly - within a few days of Oct. 17th - I figured that this is an awesome time to resurrect this discussion, since it offers the hope of actually pulling off this "double bargain."

In addition to my health care solution that, of course, has its own thread, the Republicans need to abandon chained CPI in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to raise the age for initial Social Security eligibility from 62 to three years before qualification for full eligibility, based on birth year. I realize that this sticks a huge rubber hose up me and my fellow Baby Busters - but hey, "taking one for the team" is nothing new to us; after all, we sent more of our generation to the morgue on 9/11 than any other single generation did.

And how about restoring the sequester cuts in exchange for a national "concealed carry" law that would invalidate New York's totalitarian Sullivan Law and all the other gun-grabbing measures on the books in various, virtually all liberal and (not at all coincidentally, say I) virtually all high-crime, states?

Continuing this theme, how about the passage of ENDA - the proposed federal anti-discrimination law protecting the LGBT community from discrimination in jobs, housing, etc. - in exchange for a green light for the Keystone XL pipeline?

I close my presentation with a riddle: What do Ariel Castro, Jared Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? Answer: They all pleaded guilty (or tried to in Holmes' case) in order to evade the death penalty - proving that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent. Therefore, I propose a federal death penalty (similar to the one that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will likely receive) for using a so-called "assault weapon" to kill two or more people concomitantly, along with a federal version of Florida's "10-20-Life" law, with the added caveat that the gun must have been brandished/fired in the course of committing some other felony, e.g. robbery, to prevent a redux of the Marissa Alexander case.

Let's stop bickering and get things done!

There are touches of FDR and JFK in what you write. It's amazing to me, how the neo-Left savage your ideas. The GOP is not the only party ready to implode. The Democrats have their own issues since the base now largely consists of a peculiar, millenarian variety of hard Leftist. This variety is really not all that interested in standing up for labor, the middle class or the more traditional Democratic constituency. They are crypto-Marxist revolutionaries, seeking to demolish the US as we know it.

I call it Destructivism. And by the way, there are plenty on the so called Right who might also been drawn to it.

If the world continues on its current path, all Destructivists may need to be locked up or at very least very closely watched by internal security personnel. We cannot afford to have Destructivists getting in the way of doing jobs that need to be done, in order to preserve what is left of the Republic.