Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks. And remember, flowers still provide seeds!

Yes indeed. I already have some of these flowers in my garden.

The hippies and the activists were not always the same people, using the same approach. Sometimes they were.

Plants, don't forget plants. They were first with the flowers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotiana_rustica

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks. And remember, flowers still provide seeds!

The hippies and the activists were not always the same people, using the same approach. Sometimes they were.

The "flower children's" changes to the system need to largely be undone and repealed. Only Civil rights and Women's rights should be maintained; civil rights reform would have been much more effective if the narrative had been that Americans who were being denied their rights because of race or ethnicity should be given their rights and compensated based on those groups undisputed patriotism and service to their country. That racism should have been linked conceptually to betrayal of the country and compromising its national cohesion should have been the major conceptual goal of the civil rights movements. That the civil rights movement was not in conjunction with establishing a "greater American" national identity was a major road that was not taken. In that regards boomers utopian nonsense not only set our country back in the foreign policy arena and militarily vis-a-vis our rivals but it also set us back domestically as well.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Now that's a nice daydream. I could wish for a world that worked like that easily. Unfortunately, I haven't found any genie's lamps or rings of three wishes lately.

"A pure American based system?" "A nation of independents. A nation that has no political parties, no political cronies, no community organizers in a position to lead it, no political corruption controlling it or holding it back and no unnatural forms of advancement to place incompetent people in position of making huge mistakes resulting in mass failures that impact everyone but themselves financially like we have now." Now tell me, really, are you describing the America of today or the America of any point in her past? Well, maybe in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution there was something almost like that. The Founding Fathers were wrapped in the Enlightenment. They were much more idealistic than those who followed them. Still, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were going at it way way back.

The reality is that if you can't use the word 'crony' properly, you can't become one. The urge to form peer groups and to strive for a dominant position within the peer group is very very human. Well, not just human. Lots of social animals have pecking orders, alphas and other traits that are both the backbone and the bane of human social systems. Humans are political animals. Humans will form groups, scratch the backs of their cronies, and expect them to scratch their backs.

It is said that the Mississippi legislature once passed a bill declaring that pi would no longer be 3.14159... It would be three. (It is not true that all wheels in the state immediately transformed to hexagons.) To declare that humans shall not form groups which help each other out would be roughly as futile as trying to change the value of pi.

What might be done is to give one group the ability to check the power of another other that is abusing power. In this case the general electorate ought to be able to block the elite from influencing politicians unduly. This might be possible. Currently, progressive voters hate and distrust conservative politicians, and conservative voters hate and distrust progressive politicians. The shift required would be to have all voters hate politicians who practice corrupt cronyism.

When the Great Depression hit, FDR was governor of New York. He immediately implemented a dry run of the New Deal at the state level. This put him in a great place to run for president and implement a full scale Crisis level transformation of the country.

I agree with you entirely that a lot of voters are very very fed up. It should not be impossible to do something similar to what FDR did, but focused primarily against cronyism. One needs a set of ideals, a practical agenda, and an opportunity to make the agenda work. There is enough awareness of just how broken the system is for such a transformation to take place.

What there isn't is enough blatant dysfunction for voters to consider changing their views of the world from hating the opposite political party to hating crony politicians. People do not reevaluate their way of looking at the world lightly. The problems in the country have not become severe enough for people to let go of their existing ways of looking at politics.

Anyway, after a bunch of arguments for Restoree government, you stumbled on one I can almost grab onto and chase. I don't think you are wording it well. I don't think you will be able to sell militaristic government modeled on Agricultural Age emperors or generals. That isn't American and is too far from the current Red or Blue world views to attract a critical mass.

Still, you have seen seeds of the same frustration and anger that I've seen.

I agree, as a nation, we aren't into the idea of old age imperialism like Civic often proposes and dreams about. FDR's New Deal got us to the moon and back from space in a space shuttle. LBJ's Great Society hasn't been so successful.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I agree, as a nation, we aren't into the idea of old age imperialism like Civic often proposes and dreams about. FDR's New Deal got us to the moon and back from space in a space shuttle. LBJ's Great Society hasn't been so successful.

I see the Great Society as the New Deal taken well beyond the point of expecting reasonable return. If something works for a political party, they will run with it until it stops working, and often beyond. I think Reagan's push for smaller government has similarly taken the Republicans too far in what was originally a reasonable direction.

New direction required.

I also don't think Cynic Hero is very argumentative; he mostly just states his thesis.

What is the case, is that you can't put people in boxes very easily and say who is what. Anyone may have something interesting to say and be worth reading and listening to, at least occasionally. What seems to be the case, in general, is that:

1) generally, though people who post here are bright and insightful, they don't listen or open their minds very much, and

2) personal evaluations, insults and compliments are irrelevant and distracting. This forum is not about the personalities of the participants. It's about issues and ideas. Thanking people who say valuable things or speak and listen well is one thing; making lists of who is what is another.

For that, you need to get your own do do award, Mr. Rags.

The Great Society worked quite well. Poverty, discrimination and pollution declined, for example. Medicare covers seniors well. I wouldn't disagree that there were some excesses. Unlike the New Deal, though, resources were diverted from it almost as soon as it was launched. And the powers that be were more threatened by it, and its successors like consumerism, so they installed Reagan to stop it; which he largely did, and continues to do through his followers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I also don't think Cynic Hero is very argumentative; he mostly just states his thesis.

I concur.

Originally Posted by Eric

... This forum is not about the personalities of the participants. ...

It could be about 'personalities' if the 'personalities' are what's hindering communication.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

... It's about issues and ideas. ...

Are you sure, Eric? I was under the impression that this forum was about calling
other people lunatics, bat-shit crazy, etc. I guess I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The "flower children's" changes to the system need to largely be undone and repealed. Only Civil rights and Women's rights should be maintained; civil rights reform would have been much more effective if the narrative had been that Americans who were being denied their rights because of race or ethnicity should be given their rights and compensated based on those groups undisputed patriotism and service to their country. That racism should have been linked conceptually to betrayal of the country and compromising its national cohesion should have been the major conceptual goal of the civil rights movements. That the civil rights movement was not in conjunction with establishing a "greater American" national identity was a major road that was not taken. In that regards boomers utopian nonsense not only set our country back in the foreign policy arena and militarily vis-a-vis our rivals but it also set us back domestically as well.

This is so true. In that regard, those who opposed equality / rights back during the 1T and 2T were de facto stooges for the KGB, in that they fomented anger which led to things like massive riots in Newark, LA, Detroit, etc, and after that, fertile ground for outright armed revolutionaries such as the Weather Underground and SLA. Meanwhile, certain elements from among the racists morphed into so called Militias and other radical supremacist groups. Today, those groups and offspring of them are recruited by the enemies of the USA be they states (Russia, China, Iran) or proxies of those states (ISIS, AQ, etc).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I concur.



It could be about 'personalities' if the 'personalities' are what's hindering communication.

That does not work. Discussion and insults of peoples' personalities in a public forum does not correct character or behavior, or improve communication.

You might just try actual dialogue. It can be fun and informative. If you want communication, just do it.

Hey, boomers can use Gen X slogans too

Are you sure, Eric? I was under the impression that this forum was about calling
other people lunatics, bat-shit crazy, etc. I guess I stand corrected.

Yes. No doubt it is good when people actually use the forum for its intended purpose. It does happen

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You have to understand and be familiar with the concept of a merit based system. A merit based system would not allow advancement via affirmative action or political connections or financial contribution.

So what would you do? Implement something like an SAT or a civil-service exam to decide who gets the opportunities and who becomes (and remains) raw labor? Paradoxically that does not even allow for small-scale capitalists to work the interstices of a command economy.

What would that look like? Something with the structure of the Soviet Union, only without any claim to serve any people but the economic elites.

You have to actually have the ability and prove abilities by accomplishing and achieving goals on your own or with a group in order to achieve higher levels in society and government. In other words, a pure American based system.

Purely American? What if Canada does things better?

A nation of independents. A nation that has no political parties, no political cronies, no community organizers in a position to lead it, no political corruption controlling it or holding it back and no unnatural forms of advancement to place incompetent people in position of making huge mistakes resulting in mass failures that impact everyone but themselves financially like we have now.

No political parties? That's how Cuba runs its elections. Bad idea. The people who get ahead fastest are those who learn fastest to kiss up to the regime -- the ones who show the most adulation for Marx, Lenin, Castro, and Guevara? NO THANKS! I don't want any politicized youth leagues -- let us say a Reagan Youth League or an Obama Youth League -- having a special advantage over Scouting, 4-H, Girls' Clubs or Boys' Clubs, Y's, Future Farmers of America, Catholic Youth Association, etc.

The best control upon political corruption is competitive elections in which people act capriciously depending upon events. The mot corrupt state in the Union (in the sense of having the highest percentage of former elected officials in prison) is Mississippi. Basically the Democratic Party has become the Mississippi Black People's Party and the Republican Party has become the Mississippi White People's Party. The solution to a corrupt black Democrat is the opposing white Republican -- and vice-versa. Mississippi voters don't so vote; the end up with ward-boss politics in little hamlets.

Ask yourself this question, how many of the initial steps and how much of the system is already in place and how much of the population identifies with it and prefers it over the system that's widely considered to be in place?

American political life is far worse than it was forty years ago. To be sure, we were still 'wallowing in Watergate' -- but that showed how rightfully demanding we were. We are approaching an economic fascism in which economic interests control the political process in proportion to their ability to fund the political process.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So what would you do? Implement something like an SAT or a civil-service exam to decide who gets the opportunities and who becomes (and remains) raw labor? Paradoxically that does not even allow for small-scale capitalists to work the interstices of a command economy.

What would that look like? Something with the structure of the Soviet Union, only without any claim to serve any people but the economic elites.

No. An educational structure that's very similar to the present United States. What's the issue with our education system? We spend more money on education than Canada and we receive less in terms of overall results. How much corruption, cronyism, incompetence and dead wait/fat exists in our educational system? The government system? What scares you more, a Democrat with a pair of scissors who promised to impose reforms and eliminate government corruption or a Republican? In my opinion, Hilary is the worst candidate to address what it is actually needed at this time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Purely American? What if Canada does things better?

Canada should always do things better. Canada is rich natural resources, large as far as its land mass, small in population and relies on us to defend it from others.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

No political parties? That's how Cuba runs its elections. Bad idea. The people who get ahead fastest are those who learn fastest to kiss up to the regime -- the ones who show the most adulation for Marx, Lenin, Castro, and Guevara? NO THANKS! I don't want any politicized youth leagues -- let us say a Reagan Youth League or an Obama Youth League -- having a special advantage over Scouting, 4-H, Girls' Clubs or Boys' Clubs, Y's, Future Farmers of America, Catholic Youth Association, etc.

The best control upon political corruption is competitive elections in which people act capriciously depending upon events. The mot corrupt state in the Union (in the sense of having the highest percentage of former elected officials in prison) is Mississippi. Basically the Democratic Party has become the Mississippi Black People's Party and the Republican Party has become the Mississippi White People's Party. The solution to a corrupt black Democrat is the opposing white Republican -- and vice-versa. Mississippi voters don't so vote; the end up with ward-boss politics in little hamlets.



American political life is far worse than it was forty years ago. To be sure, we were still 'wallowing in Watergate' -- but that showed how rightfully demanding we were. We are approaching an economic fascism in which economic interests control the political process in proportion to their ability to fund the political process.

What would you do if there was no longer a Democratic party to support or a Republican party to oppose? Political life is only going to worse for the politicians as we continue heading down the road towards a major crisis.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Canada should always do things better. Canada is rich natural resources, large as far as its land mass, small in population and relies on us to defend it from others.

Canada is not the point. The point is that other countries might do things better sometimes, and we could do better by following their example, sometimes. America only is silly. Canada is just an example.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That does not work. Discussion and insults of peoples' personalities in a public forum does not correct character or behavior, or improve communication.

You might just try actual dialogue. It can be fun and informative. If you want communication, just do it.

Hey, boomers can use Gen X slogans too



Yes. No doubt it is good when people actually use the forum for its intended purpose. It does happen

You're wrong, I know better than you do, progressives know every thing and can fix every thing for everyone with more money, anyone who disagrees with that or doesn't understand that is a racist or a fascist ain't much of a dialogue.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Canada is not the point. The point is that other countries might do things better sometimes, and we could do better by following their example, sometimes. America only is silly. Canada is just an example.

How many nations that do better than us are smaller than us, don't directly compete with us and are protected by us?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I also don't think Cynic Hero is very argumentative; he mostly just states his thesis.

Quite often, that is true.

What is the case, is that you can't put people in boxes very easily and say who is what. Anyone may have something interesting to say and be worth reading and listening to, at least occasionally. What seems to be the case, in general, is that:

1) generally, though people who post here are bright and insightful, they don't listen or open their minds very much, and

2) personal evaluations, insults and compliments are irrelevant and distracting. This forum is not about the personalities of the participants. It's about issues and ideas. Thanking people who say valuable things or speak and listen well is one thing; making lists of who is what is another.

Mea culpa or a my bad? Lessee, let's do some lexical analysis here as such:

who = pronoun indicating a placeholder for person[s]
is = 2nd person of "to be". In this post it's the English copula , thusly meaning "=" in science/math.
what = another pronoun indicating a placeholder for usually inanimate nouns.
another "is" , that changes the first 3 words into a simple what.
"another" at the end: complex, needs the back reference before the "is" to ascertain. Herein, it means 1 more "what". The back reference to "list" adds clarification that I've parsed the syntax correctly.

For that, you need to get your own do do award, Mr. Rags.

Hmmm... 2 "do"'s in a row, odd.
do

OK, I did do something. What did I do? Oh, yeah, it's a utopian architecture for verbs and pronouns, man.


Speaking of mea culpas, check this out:





Behold the creeping bollards of Boston. These globules are found in front of the Tip O’Neill Federal Building on Causeway Street in Boston.


1. Note the people in the pic match the balls wrt rotundness.
2. I also note a lack of imagination here.
a. The balls should all be colored blue so we can have "blue balls of Boston".
b. The balls can be done up like billiard balls. Boston could then put up signs with "it's cool to play pool in Boston".

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Quite often, that is true.



Mea culpa or a my bad? Lessee, let's do some lexical analysis here as such:

who = pronoun indicating a placeholder for person[s]
is = 2nd person of "to be". In this post it's the English copula , thusly meaning "=" in science/math.
what = another pronoun indicating a placeholder for usually inanimate nouns.
another "is" , that changes the first 3 words into a simple what.
"another" at the end: complex, needs the back reference before the "is" to ascertain. Herein, it means 1 more "what". The back reference to "list" adds clarification that I've parsed the syntax correctly.




Hmmm... 2 "do"'s in a row, odd.
do

OK, I did do something. What did I do? Oh, yeah, it's a utopian architecture for verbs and pronouns, man.


Speaking of mea culpas, check this out:





Behold the creeping bollards of Boston. These globules are found in front of the Tip O’Neill Federal Building on Causeway Street in Boston.


1. Note the people in the pic match the balls wrt rotundness.
2. I also note a lack of imagination here.
a. The balls should all be colored blue so we can have "blue balls of Boston".
b. The balls can be done up like billiard balls. Boston could then put up signs with "it's cool to play pool in Boston".

Still not very scared of people on motorsickles, bikes, or running with backpacks. You should see what they have in the Rest of the World.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Mea culpa or a my bad? Lessee, let's do some lexical analysis here as such:

who = pronoun indicating a placeholder for person[s]
is = 2nd person of "to be". In this post it's the English copula , thusly meaning "=" in science/math.
what = another pronoun indicating a placeholder for usually inanimate nouns.
another "is" , that changes the first 3 words into a simple what.
"another" at the end: complex, needs the back reference before the "is" to ascertain. Herein, it means 1 more "what". The back reference to "list" adds clarification that I've parsed the syntax correctly.

Hmmm... 2 "do"'s in a row, odd.
do

OK, I did do something. What did I do? Oh, yeah, it's a utopian architecture for verbs and pronouns, man.

Not a very graceful mea culpa. Try again. Or not, I don't care. My point stands, as my points usually do. Core Boomers are always right, doncha know?

Speaking of mea culpas, check this out:

Just shows our different tastes again, I guess. I think the balls are kinda cute. Of course, they are there for another purpose. It beats some of the other designs for such protective methods. Hey, Boston has balls, man!

A mea coppula.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

How many nations that do better than us are smaller than us, don't directly compete with us and are protected by us?

Good question. OK, so we protect them. Why are we doing that?

Small is beautiful, yes. Smaller nations can implement good ideas more easily, maybe? If so, maybe they have some good ideas for us. We should accept out of date and inadequate ideas with the excuse, "we can't do better; we're too big"?

Hey, maybe we should let the red states go their separate ways. That would make us smaller, with far less obstruction in the way of passing and implementing sensible government policies. It might be the way to go. Noone ever said that any nation has to be over-sized; not to mention composed of folks who fundamentally disagree with each other.

Just imagine how much easier our politics would be, if we even just let mighty Texas become its own republic? Let Gov. Perry have his way!

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You're wrong, I know better than you do, progressives know every thing and can fix every thing for everyone with more money, anyone who disagrees with that or doesn't understand that is a racist or a fascist ain't much of a dialogue.

Try again....

I do the best I can, but should I say I'm wrong, just so you don't get upset for sticking with my opinions?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not a very graceful mea culpa. Try again. Or not, I don't care. <snip smiley > My point stands, as my points usually do. Core Boomers are always right, doncha know?

Sure, Core Boomers are always right if the realm = Pepperland. Realityworld is of course a different animal al[together].

Just shows our different tastes again, I guess. I think the balls are kinda cute. Of course, they are there for another purpose. It beats some of the other designs for such protective methods. Hey, Boston has balls, man!

I'd prefer dodecahedrons. Note the pentagons which symbolize "The Pentagon". Since these structures designed to protect , perhaps from car bombs, the symbolic reference of all such structures should have some sort of reference to "The Pentagon". I think the subtle back reference is cool. Now with that in place, we can use this meme to include all things regarding protection. Police badges? They should all be pentagons. The military is even more mysterious in that they haven't even thought to do that back reference for their insignia. They seem stuck in time or something. Just assign the number of pentagons on a uniform to match ranks. Sure it's a manner of tastes. I'm just stating my taste as being an efficient use of symbols is all.

A mea coppula.

That would be a spelling mea culpa. It's copula .

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good question. OK, so we protect them. Why are we doing that?

Small is beautiful, yes. Smaller nations can implement good ideas more easily, maybe? If so, maybe they have some good ideas for us. We should accept out of date and inadequate ideas with the excuse, "we can't do better; we're too big"?

Hey, maybe we should let the red states go their separate ways. That would make us smaller, with far less obstruction in the way of passing and implementing sensible government policies. It might be the way to go. Noone ever said that any nation has to be over-sized; not to mention composed of folks who fundamentally disagree with each other.

Just imagine how much easier our politics would be, if we even just let mighty Texas become its own republic? Let Gov. Perry have his way!

Hey, maybe classical liberals and new age liberals should go their own separate ways. You wouldn't have to worry about Texas or the southern states and most of the mid-western and the plains states or the other half of the remaining blue states.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

No. An educational structure that's very similar to the present United States. What's the issue with our education system? We spend more money on education than Canada and we receive less in terms of overall results. How much corruption, cronyism, incompetence and dead wait/fat exists in our educational system? The government system? What scares you more, a Democrat with a pair of scissors who promised to impose reforms and eliminate government corruption or a Republican? In my opinion, Hilary is the worst candidate to address what it is actually needed at this time.

I claim to know nothing about the Canadian educational system. What do you know?

K-12 is not the problem in America. It operates efficiently, if not effectively. Most of the employees of K-12 education are honest-to-God teachers. Bloated bureaucracies are the least of the problems of K-12 education, as schools have little bureaucracy. Non-teachers? Largely bus drivers, food service, and maintenance. On the one side there is little room for professional advancement for a teacher. On the other side, if one loves the job -- and there's hardly a bigger rush than the ability to change the life of a child to the better -- career advancement within education is the least of one's concerns.

I have read Alan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, and it confirms what I have suspected: the cause of the degradation of K-12 teaching and much else is the abandonment by colleges and universities of the objective of undergraduate teaching of liberal arts. Until the mid-1960s the first-rate universities all demanded a highly-prescribed syllabus of education in philosophy and literature on the assumption that such improved the youth who underwent it. Even if the replacement was similar in intellectual rigor (undergraduate education becoming a watered-down grad school), youth picked up none of the humanizing aspects of what used to be the college norm.

Colleges churn out most of America's future leaders. It is best that leaders learn something more as a purpose in life than material gain and indulgence, bureaucratic power, entertainment, and sex. One reasonably expects good leaders to show the capacity for some personal sacrifices on behalf of those that they manage, monitor, or serve. If one does not get such sacrifice one ends up with people who see life as little more than getting the most out of life at the expense of everyone else. If life is little more than getting the most of those, then one gets those by ensuring that others be treated harshly; narcissism becomes the norm of elites. Thus we have business executives paid exceedingly well for treating people very badly.

With teachers the effect is more subtle. K-12 Teachers need a broad base of liberal education so that they can deal with psychological complexities of teaching -- and knowing what the objectives of educated life are. Teachers need to know what their teaching leads to -- competent people. Conditions of the job can force sobriety among teachers; teachers are among the educational groups least likely to be alcoholics or users of illicit drugs. That said, getting to influence a child positively and recognizing that one did so is a rush better than any drug that I can imagine.

I remember a 6th-grade teacher who told me about Dante, Goethe, and Voltaire... can you imagine that now? That teacher, likely early GI, had a broad education in college and was not scared to admit it. That is not the sort of person who went through a four-year college and saw the purpose of life as getting "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll" which I saw as college classmates in the 1970s.

Canada should always do things better. Canada is rich natural resources, large as far as its land mass, small in population and relies on us to defend it from others.

What do you know about Canada? It also has shorter growing seasons than the United States. Paradoxically the parts of the United States with longer growing seasons, typically in the American Southeast, Arizona, and California's Central Valley, do horribly in educational achievement. Values may matter more. It also has no heritage of Jim Crow practices that stunted the educational development of the descendants of plantation slaves. Canadian blacks are largely descended from long-emancipated slaves within the British Empire in North America... there was never anything like Jim Crow practice in Jamaica, which makes a big difference between Jamaican blacks and American-born blacks.

What would you do if there was no longer a Democratic party to support or a Republican party to oppose? Political life is only going to worse for the politicians as we continue heading down the road towards a major crisis.

Our political system (Presidential republic) is practically designed for a two-party system. So long as neither political party takes the totalitarian route either Left (Bolshevism) or Right (fascism) our political system will limp through just about anything. If we end up with one Party the two times in which such has happened (the demise of the Federalists in the 1810s and the demise of the Whigs in the 1850s) suggests that the one surviving Party becomes so unwieldy that it must split because the party can not satisfy contradictory interests. Of course if the cause of the demise of the defunct Party is more the result of suppression or outright murder, then one has a nastier scenario with no precedent in the United States. Some parts of the body politic become irrelevant indefinitely. God help us should that happen, as that implies that America will have committed itself to tyranny and will almost certainly cause the worst Crisis possible in America.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Try again....

I do the best I can, but should I say I'm wrong, just so you don't get upset for sticking with my opinions?

Try again.. That sentence makes no f-n sense to me whatsoever...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That does not work. Discussion ... of peoples' personalities in a public forum does not correct character or behavior, or improve communication. ...

Apparently, not.

Originally Posted by Eric

You might just try actual dialogue. It can be fun and informative. If you want communication, just do it.

Hey, boomers can use Gen X slogans too

'Just Do It!' is not, I repeat, not an Xer slogan. It's a marketing slogan used by Nike to sell a bunch of shoes.
Not only was it not created by a Gen Xer, it's original source isn't from a Gen Xer(or the Nomad Archetype).


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

Yes. No doubt it is good when people actually use the forum for its intended purpose. It does happen

I guess. Eh? Whatever.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Apparently, not.

And what a boring topic it is.

I also consider it an aspect of the shaming on social media reported on PBS tonight.

Noone on here has any business telling others how to behave. Noone here is any better than others. Don't put yourself on such a pedestal. You'll just fall off.

'Just Do It!' is not, I repeat, not an Xer slogan. It's a marketing slogan used by Nike to sell a bunch of shoes.

That it was.

Not only was it not created by a Gen Xer, it's original source isn't from a Gen Xer (or the Nomad Archetype).

Probably so. Although considered typical of Xers.