Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

One marker of what you are alluding to is the fact that the great cities and cathedrals of Europe mostly got started during 146 BC to about 1400AD. All of the supposed "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment" players utilized that which had been created centuries prior. Just because of the fact that The Church had so much power during the portion of that period after 500AD, all those who rebelled against it, rightly and wrongly, rewrote history to make the "Protestant Great Thinker" the hero of all time and to make the earlier players into derogatory stereotypes meant to imply there was nothing of value from Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Put that way, I for one certainly agree.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

And this, in spite of the existence of some incredibly talented Boomers in manufacturing. But the problem is, none of them got much clout. A more destructive type of Boomer tended to get the power in the corporate arenas of manufacturing. I once had a severe issue with one, in the midst of a series of reorgs during an attempted turn around at a place. It was the closest I ever came to work place violence and / or quitting with nothing else lined up. But ultimately, I powered through it and later was called upon to give a deposition - the firm ultimately discovered just how much of a crook the guy was and turned him over to the law.

I congratulate you on your role in putting a sociopath either in prison or out on the street. There are ways to keep sociopaths out of executive roles. One is to promote from within... "Everyone starts in the mail room/ on the shop floor/ as a cashier-checker or teller/ busing tables/ washing and cleaning things". That is one way to lose the opportunity to hire some top-notch talent, but that also keeps the dreaded poseurs away. Poseurs rarely seek to do things the hard way; they would rather give others the shaft, and they don't like to wait their turn. That might not hold for attorneys, physicians, engineers, or architects... but for most people it works.

The antithesis of narcissism is humility. Humility isn't fun, but it is a survival value, and not only for those who are compelled to show it in servility. Among elites it prevents the destruction of a social fabric that depends upon the common person believing that he has a stake in the system.

Boomer elites may have been the worst ever as executives -- so narcissistic that they could do nothing unless the System had them as the focus of attention and economic gain, in which case they were well motivated. They were far better at grabbing wealth than at creating wealth.

Finance, legalized loan-sharking, fundamentalist religion, public relations, and right-wing politics do not create wealth. Construction of plant and supply of equipment create wealth. Education (the only thing that Boomers were really good at that contributed to the creation of wealth) makes better workers. Engineering allows people to do better with such resources that they have -- and I could make the case that the only clear improvement in American life since about 1980 was in our electronic gadgets. To be sure, the Republicans promoted education (but with huge increases in college costs, the promotion of for-profit rip-off 'education', and expensive student loans) and residential construction (the bubble economy) in the Double-Zero decade.

Somewhat of an "a-ha" moment over the weekend ... Fox majorly plugged Webb during a campaign propaganda piece disguised as a news hour.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO it runs into the same philosophical problem as Dualism, or using scientific facts to justify ethical statements, trying to get logically from here to there.

This actually sounds like an interesting conversation, could you flesh it out a little bit more? I think I see where you're going with this, but I also think you sound like you might be guilty of a bit of Dualism yourself. How exactly do you think the problem (assuming it exists) should be approached?

Since the 2014 election, nearly one fourth of all states have been polled on how the Presidential election would go if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Not all states have been polled about all potential nominees, bit a pattern is emerging:

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie



Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

tie -- white
no polls -- gray

I can post only four images, so here's the new favorite of the American Right, the man who will save plutocratic oligarchy from unions, public employees, and environmentalists if elected:

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

tie -- white
no polls -- gray

It looks at this stage as if Hillary Clinton is going to lose nothing that Barack Obama won in 2012. We shall see more sort itself out as politicians drop out about a year from now. To be sure, this is a composite of polls, not all from the same source. Not all states are polled in all instances.

The shakiest is the poll for Missouri, which as I understand, was taken by a right-wing publication. But the poll of Nevada was taken for a right-wing website (Breitbart), and it shows the state at most on the fringe of contention.

There will be more polls. The source that I use (and in which I originally posted these maps) uses blue for Republicans and red for Democrats.

While Hillary would be superior to any republican "alternative" the fundamental systemic problem that effects both parties would remain. What needs to be done is to institute decisive government, where political and military decisions are instituted without the months or years of debates or gridlock. Government programs would actually be allocated in ways that actually do the job that they're intended to do. The military would be allowed to fight with its gloves off and with both hands swinging, individual commanders would be allowed to carry out operations as they see fit as long as they bring victory.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

While Hillary would be superior to any republican "alternative" the fundamental systemic problem that effects both parties would remain. What needs to be done is to institute decisive government, where political and military decisions are instituted without the months or years of debates or gridlock.

Tyrannical regimes can be very decisive. They can also be decisively wrong. Democracy at its best compels deliberation on the issues of the day. It can compel people to seek alternatives to some harebrained scheme or to find alternatives that work better. Sometimes the gridlock that slows a drastic but disastrous response might be just the thing to prevent a bad situation from getting far worse than it need be.

Many wars -- World War I was a prime example -- begin because kings get angry. By 1919 three of the angry emperors were either executed or exiled. Personal anger can lead to grave miscalculations.

Government programs would actually be allocated in ways that actually do the job that they're intended to do.

How does that work with unaccountable government? Horribly. To be sure, we have dreadful politics in part due to the inability of opposing sides to compromise. That requires a cure in which the current opposing sides begin to respect each other -- in which case, as in the somewhat-recent past, American politics actually worked. But give some people unaccountable power, and horrible deeds will happen.

The military would be allowed to fight with its gloves off and with both hands swinging, individual commanders would be allowed to carry out operations as they see fit as long as they bring victory.

That is how Japan did things in World War II. How did that work out?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

This actually sounds like an interesting conversation, could you flesh it out a little bit more? I think I see where you're going with this, but I also think you sound like you might be guilty of a bit of Dualism yourself. How exactly do you think the problem (assuming it exists) should be approached?

I've been down with a nasty chest cold, I'll get back to you on this in a few days!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

... The military would be allowed to fight with its gloves off and with both hands swinging, individual commanders would be allowed to carry out operations as they see fit as long as they bring victory.

That doesn't even make sense from your lunatic fringe perspective!! "Let individual commanders do whatever they want???!!!"

Just to begin with, can you imagine the logistics nightmare? Of not knowing where your units are, who needs what, how to safely re-supply them, etc.?

Originally Posted by TnT

That doesn't even make sense from your lunatic fringe perspective!! "Let individual commanders do whatever they want???!!!"

Just to begin with, can you imagine the logistics nightmare? Of not knowing where your units are, who needs what, how to safely re-supply them, etc.?

Individual commanders would receive directives from their superiors but would not be micromanaged from above. Thus commanders would have wide latitude in carrying out orders from above and giving orders to combat troops and officers: even if methods they adopt for example with regards to the conduct of troops in enemy territories and handling violate what is generally considered international military law. That is what I mean by Commanders having wide latitude as long their methods achieve victory.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Individual commanders would receive directives from their superiors but would not be micromanaged from above. Thus commanders would have wide latitude in carrying out orders from above and giving orders to combat troops and officers: even if methods they adopt for example with regards to the conduct of troops in enemy territories and handling violate what is generally considered international military law. That is what I mean by Commanders having wide latitude as long their methods achieve victory.

Would it have been a real victory for America had it abandoned the ethical principles that America cherished and become as evil as the demonic powers that America faced in World War II? Atrocities like the Bataan Death March and concentration camps such as Dachau were unthinkable to America -- but not to people who had abandoned all scruples. America was at war with political systems whose leaders operated without scruples.

The Geneva and Hague Conventions do nothing to cripple an effective military machine. One gets ultimate victory more easily if one destroys the will of those just conquered to resist than if one brutalizes the conquered. That is the difference between the Nazis and us in WWII. We gave nobody cause to strike back.

I'd rather have problems with over-stretching the supply lines than fearing that some resistance movement would cut them. The Nazis faced partisan movements in every occupied country; the British and Americans didn't. That's a big difference.

...I'm thinking of writing a book in which much of the history of WWII is inverted; Germany and Japan are the good guys, Britain and France begin as bad guys, and the KKK-dominated America is evil to the end -- a harsh end that leaves America divided through Chicago. I can't sanitize Stalin... but I have a hint on the Battle of Stalingrad in my alternative history -- because German troops need not watch their backs in Poland and Ukraine, and because Jewish entrepreneurs richly endow the German war machine with winter clothes for the Russian front, Germany and its allies have overwhelming strength there and prevail decisively.

Now for a little detail on the post-war settlement: the film studios of Hollywood revert to Mexican rule, so the American movie industry (at least in the east) relocates to the Shenandoah Valley, the sunniest location in the eastern US.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is how Japan did things in World War II. How did that work out?

That's how America did things in WWII. Ike and his generals ran the war in Europe. MacArthur and his generals ran the war in the Pacific. FDR made the decisions as far as operations and signed off on the operations. How did that work out? It's pretty clear that Obama and his bureaucrats are piss poor generals who shouldn't be in charge of micro managing and making the decisions in war zones. America doesn't have faith in the ass wipes in Washington and if that loss of faith continues the government you believe in is going down hard due to lack of support.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I can post only four images, so here's the new favorite of the American Right, the man who will save plutocratic oligarchy from unions, public employees, and environmentalists if elected:

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

tie -- white
no polls -- gray

Scott Walker is the flavor of the month. The chances are likely it's not going to be Scott Walker that she's running against.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Scott Walker is the flavor of the month. The chances are likely it's not going to be Scott Walker that she's running against.

So far I see no cause to believe that the electoral map of 2016 will be appreciably different from that of 2008 or 2012, even if Hillary Clinton seems to have differences of style from Barack Obama. To be sure we see few polls from the Mountain or Deep South... or the Great Plains states. Two similar elections in succession involving the winner of the first election getting re-elected by a similar margin (1952/1956, 1992/1996, and 2008/2012 are obvious) happen. Three successive such elections? Not likely.

Usually there is some regional shift in support. Jimmy Carter was not so effective in 1976 in appealing to the Rust Belt as he was in the South.

In the twenty months before the Presidential election we are going to see some things sort themselves out.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

That's how America did things in WWII. Ike and his generals ran the war in Europe. MacArthur and his generals ran the war in the Pacific. FDR made the decisions as far as operations and signed off on the operations. How did that work out? It's pretty clear that Obama and his bureaucrats are piss poor generals who shouldn't be in charge of micro managing and making the decisions in war zones. America doesn't have faith in the ass wipes in Washington and if that loss of faith continues the government you believe in is going down hard due to lack of support.

It is arguable that the best wartime Presidents had little military experience. It's telling that General Ulysses S. Grant was President during the Battle of Big Horn. Lincoln? Wilson? FDR? They left war to the generals and admirals and defined some basic rules of engagement. Eisenhower, a fine general, got out of a war through diplomacy instead of forcing a conflict to an end possibly not of his choosing. The elder Bush had some military experience but decided (wisely) that such was no longer relevant to Panama or Iraq.

Obama, should he get into a war (most likely with ISIS) will almost certainly follow the patterns of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and (to some extent) Reagan.

Of course, LBJ was the worst wartime President that we ever had -- until Dubya. Neither had experience in combat, and both bungled war badly.

WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Sunday made an effort to walk back recent controversial comments comparing union protesters to the Islamic State group and expressing doubt over whether President Barack Obama loves America.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Walker said he was "not comparing" union protesters to the terrorist group known as ISIS.

The comment came three days after Walker answered a question about ISIS at a conservative conference by saying, "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world." Walker was referring to the protesters who gathered in Wisconsin in 2011 to oppose his efforts to strip public sector unions of collective bargaining rights.

His remarks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference drew an immediate backlash, and since then, both Walker and his spokespeople have been working overtime to dial back and "clarify" what he meant.

"What I meant was it's about leadership, and the leadership we provided under extremely difficult circumstances," Walker, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace. "To me, I apply that to saying, 'If I were to run and if I were to win and be commander-in-chief, I believe that kind of leadership is what's necessary to take on radical Islamic terrorism.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...p_ref=politics

For one thing, those union people do not behead their political opponents.

Scott Walker shows contempt for truth much like a dictator in power.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...p_ref=politics

For one thing, those union people do not behead their political opponents.

Scott Walker shows contempt for truth much like a dictator in power.

The truth is his comment was about sizable challenges he wasn't afraid to take on and was able to over come. He wasn't making a direct comparison between the union members and ISIS. BTW, if you're the one who is teaching LW idiots to read and comprehend what's really being said then you're fired because you're as stupid as them.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It is arguable that the best wartime Presidents had little military experience. It's telling that General Ulysses S. Grant was President during the Battle of Big Horn. Lincoln? Wilson? FDR? They left war to the generals and admirals and defined some basic rules of engagement. Eisenhower, a fine general, got out of a war through diplomacy instead of forcing a conflict to an end possibly not of his choosing. The elder Bush had some military experience but decided (wisely) that such was no longer relevant to Panama or Iraq.

Obama, should he get into a war (most likely with ISIS) will almost certainly follow the patterns of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and (to some extent) Reagan.

Of course, LBJ was the worst wartime President that we ever had -- until Dubya. Neither had experience in combat, and both bungled war badly.

Obama is a wartime president. LBJ, Nixon & & Truman being the closest comparisons. Bush made mistakes and fucked shit up and made things worse. Obama made more mistakes, fucked more shit up and made things even worse. It's time to end the idiot trend & elect a person with common sense.

The entire system has declined into politically motivated agendas. The last 3 presidents have all been doddering old fools. The combination of party agendas yet at the same both parties have to pay lip service to some 18th century document, the sum of all of this is what is creating the chaos at capitol hill. What I propose is decisive government where the leadership sends out directives that is swiftly carried out, where laws can be passed within a matter of hours when seen as necessary. Where the military can be expanded to an unprecedented size. I dream of a future where a future president or commander-and-chief looks out at a balcony overlooking much of Washington DC and he/she sees hundreds of thousands of helmeted and heavily-armed troops assembled before him/her and then he/she raises a baton at which point in unison the troops form up and march in seemingly endless columns down Pennsylvania avenue accompanied by tanks, armored vehicles and paraded missiles; at the same time thousands of air force Jets are seen over the sky.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The entire system has declined into politically motivated agendas. The last 3 presidents have all been doddering old fools. The combination of party agendas yet at the same both parties have to pay lip service to some 18th century document, the sum of all of this is what is creating the chaos at capitol hill. What I propose is decisive government where the leadership sends out directives that is swiftly carried out, where laws can be passed within a matter of hours when seen as necessary. Where the military can be expanded to an unprecedented size. I dream of a future where a future president or commander-and-chief looks out at a balcony overlooking much of Washington DC and he/she sees hundreds of thousands of helmeted and heavily-armed troops assembled before him/her and then he/she raises a baton at which point in unison the troops form up and march in seemingly endless columns down Pennsylvania avenue accompanied by tanks, armored vehicles and paraded missiles; at the same time thousands of air force Jets are seen over the sky.

Your dream is to wake up in the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany and not the United States. As far as your view of what government is today, I agree with your views.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Obama is a wartime president. LBJ, Nixon & & Truman being the closest comparisons. Bush made mistakes and fucked shit up and made things worse. Obama made more mistakes, fucked more shit up and made things even worse. It's time to end the idiot trend & elect a person with common sense.

Unfortunately there's a short supply of such persons.

Given the intelligence level of the American people, Obama is about the best we can expect. Ralph Nader would have been the best choice, but America is not ready for him. We have to settle for idiots of various degrees and stripes, because that's who is doing the electing.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

That's how America did things in WWII. Ike and his generals ran the war in Europe. MacArthur and his generals ran the war in the Pacific. FDR made the decisions as far as operations and signed off on the operations. How did that work out? It's pretty clear that Obama and his bureaucrats are piss poor generals who shouldn't be in charge of micro managing and making the decisions in war zones. America doesn't have faith in the ass wipes in Washington and if that loss of faith continues the government you believe in is going down hard due to lack of support.

Though Obama and bureaucrats shouldn't micromanage wars, I'm not sure what errors Obama and Co. have made in pursuing wars. They made an error in policy in not supporting the Syrian free army soon enough, and the USA and its allies did not follow up in Libya to help them develop a legal and government infrastructure after helping the Libyans topple Qaddafi. Some pundits say Obama should not have drawn a red line with regard to chemical weapons in Syria, and not followed through; although the approach worked. But these were not errors in war strategy.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The truth is his comment was about sizable challenges he wasn't afraid to take on and was able to over come. He wasn't making a direct comparison between the union members and ISIS. BTW, if you're the one who is teaching LW idiots to read and comprehend what's really being said then you're fired because you're as stupid as them.

Courage on his part to stand up to "union thugs"? Get this straight -- those are normal people who believe in the American dream enough to fight for it against anyone who would take it away from them. The worst that those "union thugs" could do to him is to vote him out in an election.

Standing up to ISIS takes far more than revulsion at ISIS. The revulsion that Scott Walker and the Koch family that bankrolls his electoral campaigns may please each other. Being able to discuss military matters with foreign leaders, diplomats, CIA chiefs, and senior military officers is vital. At that President Barack Obama has a track record. A hint: Osama bin Laden got rushed to a very bad place while President Obama was at a journalists' dinner that he could not leave without giving something away.

Oh, by the way -- get your terminology straight on "idiots". I have never taught any real idiots. Such people, with IQs under 20, are practically unteachable. With an IQ of 50 people get much more teachable, unlike people who can never develop beyond the pre-elementary level.

As is typical in K-12 education I NEVER have leeway to push my partisan political beliefs. I once told a youth who said that she wanted to go on welfare that welfare was likely to vanish, and that she had better prepare to work for a living. Politics is never part of the syllabus of teaching reading in any form. What is political about phonics?

I suppose that you were one of those absolutely sure that Barack Obama could not be re-elected because he is so 'awful'. Maybe I can give you a little lesson in probability and statistics that can disabuse you of any assumption that my intelligence is on the low side -- as if my word choice and use don't convince you.