But the topic was never discussed even once. Anthony cannot be off-topic in his first post because he was the founder of the thread. Anthony's personal beliefs WERE the topic. Clearly Anthony believed the the piece he posted supported his views in some way. That in itself is curious and yet it was not explored. This I think is the main complaint of the conservations on the board. Many of the posts directed to them must come across to them as the adult voices in Peanuts television specials.

Originally Posted by B Butler

We don't agree on a lot on these forums. We have lots of mostly Blues, lots of Mostly Reds, some rogues and Eric's psychedelic spinning rock n roll flowers. At a base level, I think a lot of us will agree on a few basics. Today's government and elite culture is badly broken, stagnated, and not addressing real needs. However, there will be serious disagreement on what precisely is most broken, what needs are the greatest.

I might wish that the psychedelic spinning rock n roll flowers were "Eric's," but it was and is a vast movement. I think many blues and greens agree with those basics you mention. In a sense the reds (as we ironically call them now) do too, but it appears they not only disagree with blues/greens on what needs are greatest, but who the elite is and which "government" is broken.

Of course, the answer is for the country to adopt the personal values and world view of the person writing the post. In that, you (Cynic) are no different from any of the rest of us, including myself.

Yes, and to a large extent, these values and world views reflect large movements and trends in society. In Cynic Hero's case, they don't.

As far as I know there is no one else contributing to these boards that advocate autocratic military values and government? (Well, Virgil Saari would advocate the return to power of this or that royal dynasty, but he seldom if ever advocated militarism.) I have encountered no one in the real world who is looking for a return to military autocratic rule.

Does anyone else have any interest at all in the country going that way? Is Cynic the Only Restoree?

Probably. Well, Dick Cheney comes to mind; maybe....

mikebert's observation seems spot on to me.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

But the topic was never discussed even once. Anthony cannot be off-topic in his first post because he was the founder of the thread. Anthony's personal beliefs WERE the topic. Clearly Anthony believed the the piece he posted supported his views in some way. That in itself is curious and yet it was not explored. This I think is the main complaint of the conservations on the board. Many of the posts directed to them must come across to them as the adult voices in Peanuts television specials.

I think that may be the problem. Anthony posted something that runs counter to the beliefs he's espoused in the past, so the responses were off-kilter from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think that may be the problem. Anthony posted something that runs counter to the beliefs he's espoused in the past, so the responses were off-kilter from the beginning.

Well, feel free to consider my responses off-kilter and reset the thread, if possible. I was focused on a few comments towards the end, not the gist of the whole article, and I may have been improperly focused at that.

I certainly would agree that we should listen to each other more.

My intent was to repudiate the bi-polar political model that the author of the linked article is slavishly wedded to as not only wrong logistically, but also wrong morally.

True, her focus was on the libertarians, who she claims more or less have no right to exist, while not even acknowledging the existence of any consistent "anti-libertarians."

The point being that a four-party system would be open to ever-shifting alliances, and would thus not only be far more conducive to actually getting things done, but would also be highly conducive to civility, and just plain human decency.

Therefore such an arrangement should be praised and encouraged - not dismissed and censured.

The alternative; i.e., dividing everybody into political Bloods and Crips - same colors, even! - is profoundly dangerous, and likely to lead to the defining events of this 4T being centrifugal (as in 1861-1865), not centripetal (1941-1945).

It must be rejected in no uncertain terms - and at all costs.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

True, her focus was on the libertarians, who she claims more or less have no right to exist,

No, she is calling them out. She is saying that libertarians are effectively no different where it matters from ordinary conservatives. They want to have their cake and eat it. This would be like professing to be a Catholic because you believe in God and like the pope, yet do not attend Mass and are divorced and remarried.

The point being that a four-party system would be open to ever-shifting alliances, and would thus not only be far more conducive to actually getting things done, but would also be highly conducive to civility, and just plain human decency.

That is unrealistic. It's not like there have not been vibrant third parties, but they cannot win significant seats in the legislature. The reason political scientists give is our district-based electoral system in which the candidate getting the most votes wins the district, which they called single-member district plurality (SMDP).

Third parties may have statistically significant support (maybe 15 percent of voters in every district supports a third party). But in an SMDP system, the third party may well not win any seats. So those voters will likely join with another party and look for a compromise candidate that could represent them.

dividing everybody into political Bloods and Crips - same colors, even! - is profoundly dangerous

Changing it would require a new Constitution. But I do not believe that having two parties has caused this division. I think the population really is divided. Look Israel has like 8 or 10 viable parties in Parliament and yet only two distinct factions: one of which is dominant, which means that for all practical purposes Israel is a one party state like other Middle Eastern countries.

Also the four quadrants are not as independent as you might like to think. Economic and social conservatism are linked to each other. If you are socially conservative, you are a traditionalist. You believe marriage is between a man and woman because it has always been that way. They are also inclined to accept the idea of a natural aristocracy and one's place in life below them because that is the way things have always been. In America, aristocrats are those who achieved great success in their chosen walk in life, usually commerce, or are descended from those who were. Billionaires are natural aristocrats and deserve respect; they should not be pilloried or subjected to confiscatory taxation. The tendency of liberals to call for higher taxes on the rich, helps put the billionaire in the same tribe as the social conservative. When representatives of these aristocrats express a range of social views and cultural preferences with which social conservatives are comfortable, it becomes easier to accept the economic polices they support that do nothing to help or maybe even worsen their own economic problems.

Also the four quadrants are not equivalent in terms of political effectiveness. In a state society like all modern nations, policy is made by elites. Elites are typically much richer than non-elites. Like anyone else, elites will tend to favor policy that does not hurt them. It is asking a lot for an elite to eagerly advocate to be taxed heavily, or to have their economic freedom constrained by regulations. All else being equal, elites are less likely to favor economically progressive viewpoints. Therefore they will feel more affinity to the conservative or libertarian quadrants. Also since elites wish to retain their elevated position they tend to favor status quo, and so tend to be on the Right (i.e. supporters of the Establishment).

Since you need elites to be viable, this gives a natural advantage to the conservative quadrant. You can move elites fairly easily from conservative to libertarian, if they have more libertine values, because it costs nothing. And you can fairly easily move elites from conservative to progressive if they are repelled in some way by the Establishment (e.g. women, blacks and other ethnic minorities, gays, religious minorities). Hence the libertarian and progressive quadrants can be staffed with sufficient elites to make them viable.

It is hard to think of a reason why an elite would move from any of the other quadrants to National Liberalism. What would they gain? Presumably, they would be social conservative, and so should be very comfortable as conservatives.

Only if they ascribe to some comprehensive world-view that mandates the National Liberal position. For example some sort of Catholic Workers Party (something along the lines of what Dorothy Day tried to do) might be such a thing. But those American elites who are observant Catholics tend to ascribe to economic conservation. Some sort of Christian Democrat is conceivable, but again, those Protestant elites who are most observant largely belong to Evangelical or Conservative denominations whose leaders (e.g. Billy Graham) forged alliances with corporate elites. They are almost all economically conservative.

But libertarians are much like atheists: There are true libertarians, who also favor legalizing marijuana etc. as well as abolishing the income tax etc. - and there are ersatz libertarians, who really advocate only the latter, while, at best, talking out of both sides of their mouth re the former. Similarly, there are real atheists who even-handedly reject all religion - Bill Maher, Sam Harris etc. - and anti-Christians who conveniently hide behind atheism.

As for the aristocracy and taxation: True national liberals do not favor confiscatory taxation, but rather, behavior-directing taxation: In the 1950s, the taxes the super-rich actually paid were not overly high, despite the 91% top income tax rate - because the corporate tax rate was much lower, giving the elites a powerful incentive to plow their money back into the economy, and into profit-making, and job-creating, investments (and higher wages and benefits for those who worked for the enterprises thus created). I would carry it even further now - with an even lower corporate tax rate than in the 1950s, with the same top income tax rates as back then.

Also, the aristocrats of the mid-20th Century had a palpable sense of noblesse oblige - Nelson Rockefeller, John Hay Whitney, Brooke Astor etc. - and were effusively praised for it. Today, however, the elites are dominated by crass, selfish people - the Kochs, Waltons etc. - and those few among the super-rich who do show a sense of noblesse oblige - George Soros, Warren Buffett - are utterly reviled as "class traitors," or even just plain traitors.

But there is hope - and that ray of hope is being brightly shone by Pope Francis, who is conclusively revealing himself as this saeculum's version of Pius XI. If he can overcome the left-liberals' knee-jerk, pathological hatred of all things religious, he can lead a worldwide revival of national liberalism.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

In the 1950s, the taxes the super-rich actually paid were not overly high, despite the 91% top income tax rate - because the corporate tax rate was much lower

Corporate top rates over most of the 1950's was 52%, close to the highest ever. They are 35% today.

The elites a powerful incentive to plow their money back into the economy

Elites had a powerful incentive to invest their money because after-tax returns to equity, despite the high level of taxation were much higher than interest rates, which were kept at low levels even during good times. After 1980, whenever growth started to accelerate and the possibility of wage gains arose, the Fed would hike rates, cutting off any opportunity for workers to see gains. If you plot real wage over time it shows steady growth from 1790 to around 1930, faster growth from 1930 to the late 1970's, and then flat to down after.

Returns to equity were high because stock prices were lower (measured in terms of reciprocal dividend yield) that they would be after 1980, making equity cheaper and thus a better investment. This was so because the high taxes drained a lot of wealth away, leaving less available to bid up asset prices to nosebleed levels and destroying the incentives to invest. So returns were good, investment was strong, the economy grew more quickly and all boats were lifted.

Price is a key determinant of an investments soundness. A good stock of a company with sound prospects, can be an excellent investment at a reasonable price and a bad investment at a high price. When taxes on the rich are too low (as they have been for decades) money flowing in assets causes valuation to rise like detritus piling up in a forest, eventually it ignites in the conflagration of an asset bubble and subsequent collapse, which may or may not trigger a panic and depression.

Capitalist economies engage in boom-bust cycles of 7-11 years in length that were first identified by the French physician Clement Juglar and bear his name. When downturns in Juglar cycles were augmented by downturns in Kuznets cycles in construction and investment in long-duration assets, who would get a double-strength downturn. When taxes are low these downturns are more severe (the higher they are the farther they have to fall) and major financial panics occur, e.g. 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1932-3, 2008. High taxes over 1930-1986 (particularly over 1941-1981) served to drain off enough financial detritus so as to avoid bubbles and associated panics, giving a less bumpy, smoother ride after the war.

This pleasant state of economic affairs had been created under Democratic administrations in the 1940's. This is why "hard hats" in those days favored Democrats. You might also notice if you plot out the incidence of strikes alongside the real wage gains that the big gains tended to occur during times of high levels of strike activity, were we correlated with Democratic administrations from Wilson to Johnson. The pattern broke done at Carter, who in the graphs looks like a Republican (real wages began their stagnation during his administration). Before Carter, Democrats at least acted as if they were a friend to the working man. Under Carter, they looked no different than Republicans who also favored of management and the owning class, but didn't lie about it. So the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrats doesn't look so strange. I'll note that if you plot real wages for blacks you can see quite clearly why blacks were so supportive of Clinton during his troubles. But I will also point out that Clinton passed NAFTA with a Democratic Congress, and allowed repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Also, the aristocrats of the mid-20th Century had a palpable sense of noblesse oblige - Nelson Rockefeller, John Hay Whitney, Brooke Astor etc. - and were effusively praised for it. Today, however, the elites are dominated by crass, selfish people - the Kochs, Waltons etc - and those few among the super-rich who do show a sense of noblesse oblige - George Soros, Warren Buffett - are utterly reviled as "class traitors," or even just plain traitors.

They were this way in the fifties because they lost control of the economy in 1932. When the Democrats abdicated in the late 1970's (as Republicans had fifty years earlier) they got back their mojo and could finally express themselves.

But there is hope - and that ray of hope is being brightly shone by Pope Francis, who is conclusively revealing himself as this saeculum's version of Pius XI. If he can overcome the left-liberals' knee-jerk, pathological hatred of all things religious, he can lead a worldwide revival of national liberalism.

I think most of the resistance to Francis in the West is going to come from conservative Catholics, who are not at all happy with his economic and environmental message. We could see schism.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Similarly, there are real atheists who even-handedly reject all religion - Bill Maher, Sam Harris etc. - and anti-Christians who conveniently hide behind atheism.

I'm not sure I follow on this sentence. Are these "anti-Christians" somehow advocating so on behalf of another religion behind the shield of atheism? I must be misunderstanding this, because I've never heard of such a thing.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Also, the aristocrats of the mid-20th Century had a palpable sense of noblesse oblige - Nelson Rockefeller, John Hay Whitney, Brooke Astor etc. - and were effusively praised for it. Today, however, the elites are dominated by crass, selfish people - the Kochs, Waltons etc. - and those few among the super-rich who do show a sense of noblesse oblige - George Soros, Warren Buffett - are utterly reviled as "class traitors," or even just plain traitors.

I'm also not sure if the difference in magnitude between the times is that significant, but I don't know how that can be measured. But anyway, yes, rich people are jerks, as I read this morning:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/16/8790357/rich-people-jerks

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Corporate top rates over most of the 1950's was 52%, close to the highest ever. They are 35% today.

In that case, go to like 28% then.

Capitalist economies engage in boom-bust cycles of 7-11 years in length that were first identified by the French physician Clement Juglar and bear his name. When downturns in Juglar cycles were augmented by downturns in Kuznets cycles in construction and investment in long-duration assets, who would get a double-strength downturn. When taxes are low these downturns are more severe (the higher they are the farther they have to fall) and major financial panics occur, e.g. 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1932-3, 2008. High taxes over 1930-1986 (particularly over 1941-1981) served to drain off enough financial detritus so as to avoid bubbles and associated panics, giving a less bumpy, smoother ride after the war.

Wasn't there also a panic in 1884?

This pleasant state of economic affairs had been created under Democratic administrations in the 1940's. This is why "hard hats" in those days favored Democrats. You might also notice if you plot out the incidence of strikes alongside the real wage gains that the big gains tended to occur during times of high levels of strike activity, were we correlated with Democratic administrations from Wilson to Johnson. The pattern broke done at Carter, who in the graphs looks like a Republican (real wages began their stagnation during his administration). Before Carter, Democrats at least acted as if they were a friend to the working man. Under Carter, they looked no different than Republicans who also favored of management and the owning class, but didn't lie about it. So the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrats doesn't look so strange. I'll note that if you plot real wages for blacks you can see quite clearly why blacks were so supportive of Clinton during his troubles. But I will also point out that Clinton passed NAFTA with a Democratic Congress, and allowed repeal of Glass-Steagall.

But it actually started even before the Reagan Democrats - with the "Democrats For Nixon," founded by George Meany in 1972.

They were this way in the fifties because they lost control of the economy in 1932. When the Democrats abdicated in the late 1970's (as Republicans had fifty years earlier) they got back their mojo and could finally express themselves.

And they got it back by advancing a "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" argument re "individuality" - an argument so foolishly handed to them by the antics of the types now palpably on display in the new NBC series Aquarius (which is awesome as entertainment, BTW).

I think most of the resistance to Francis in the West is going to come from conservative Catholics, who are not at all happy with his economic and environmental message. We could see schism.

I've been predicting for quite some time (mostly on facebook) that by mid-century most Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans etc, will be Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. - not Roman Catholics, at which point the Catholic Church in the U.S. will be a largely Hispanic phenomenon, quite possibly leading to a new surge of anti-Catholic bigotry.

But they shouldn't be "not at all happy" with Francis' economic message - and 60 years ago would not have been, nor would they be now if we did have a multi-party rather than a two-party system.

Maybe national liberals can engineer a hostile takeover of the Working Families Party - the way the Religious Right and its allies engineered their hostile takeover of the Tea Party?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Wasn't there also a panic in 1884?

Yes. That one wasn't a Kuznets downturn, just Juglar.

But it actually started even before the Reagan Democrats - with the "Democrats For Nixon," founded by George Meany in 1972.

I think that was pre-seasonal.

And they got it back by advancing a "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" argument re "individuality" - an argument so foolishly handed to them by the antics of the types now palpably on display in the new NBC series Aquarius (which is awesome as entertainment, BTW).

This is superficial, if Democrats had still been delivering the goods, the white working class (outside of the South) would mostly have stayed Democrats.

But they shouldn't be "not at all happy" with Francis' economic message

Of course they should it opposes their economic interest.

- and 60 years ago would not have been

Of course they would it opposes their economic interest.

Economic conservative means being in favor of inflation fighting over jobs, taxes as low as possible and still be compatible with inflation control (since 1980 that means lower, always lower). They have not changed their views in 150 years, supporting policy that benefits one's self and others like them is a constant. Why wouldn't it be?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Economic conservative means being in favor of inflation fighting over jobs, taxes as low as possible and still be compatible with inflation control (since 1980 that means lower, always lower). They have not changed their views in 150 years, supporting policy that benefits one's self and others like them is a constant. Why wouldn't it be?

I think Reagan introduced a big change. Traditionally, economic conservatives would pay their bills, not run a deficit. They viewed government much like a big business. When things are slow, you cut back on spending and don't run up a big debt. You hunker down until things kick alive again.

The Democrats around FDR's time bought into Keynes, which says the above is wrong. Government spending in bad times can kick things alive. One can accept debt in bad times, but should pay it off in good times.

From Reagan on, the "economic conservatives" seem to believe that if deficit spending stimulates the economy in bad times, it must be a fine thing in good times as well. They have been stimulating the economy with more and more debt come rain or come shine. This to me is not 'conservative'. It is reckless and stupid.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

I'm not sure I follow on this sentence. Are these "anti-Christians" somehow advocating so on behalf of another religion behind the shield of atheism? I must be misunderstanding this, because I've never heard of such a thing.

You are probably misunderstanding it because he is using a made up analogy. Most atheists I know oppose all religion on the grounds that religion is dangerous and that there is no evidence for a god so why should anyone believe in something for which there is no evidence. That in the US Christianity comes under fire more than say Hinduism is not relevant here--the fact is that most people claim to be Christian in this country therefore American atheists (and anti-theists) would obviously have more first hand experience with Christianity as opposed to say Hinduism.

ETA: Also note that many Christians, particularly Evangelicals, have a persecution complex even though they are the ones who are primarily the ones doing the persecuting.

I'm also not sure if the difference in magnitude between the times is that significant, but I don't know how that can be measured. But anyway, yes, rich people are jerks, as I read this morning:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/16/8790357/rich-people-jerks

I would argue that for every plutocrat with a sense of noblesse oblige there are ten who just don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves unless it affects their bottom line (excluding perhaps immediate family--that seems to be hard wired into people who aren't total sociopaths). I would further argue that this has been true since the beginning of class distinctions.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You are probably misunderstanding it because he is using a made up analogy. Most atheists I know oppose all religion on the grounds that religion is dangerous and that there is no evidence for a god so why should anyone believe in something for which there is no evidence. That in the US Christianity comes under fire more than say Hinduism is not relevant here--the fact is that most people claim to be Christian in this country therefore American atheists (and anti-theists) would obviously have more first hand experience with Christianity as opposed to say Hinduism.

Most professional atheists fail the test for true atheism, on either or both of the following grounds: 1) They bash only Christianity - not the other faiths, especially Islam; and 2) A true atheist maintains strict neutrality between G-d and Satan; the phonies never attack Satan.

ETA: Also note that many Christians, particularly Evangelicals, have a persecution complex even though they are the ones who are primarily the ones doing the persecuting.

Two wrongs don't make a right: Just because Christians have, undeniably, been the perpetrators of unfair treatment in the past, doesn't mean that they ought to be targets of unfair treatment in the present and/or future - as in being made to "put a sock in it" about things they consider to be immoral. You don't remedy discrimination with more discrimination.

I would argue that for every plutocrat with a sense of noblesse oblige there are ten who just don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves unless it affects their bottom line (excluding perhaps immediate family--that seems to be hard wired into people who aren't total sociopaths). I would further argue that this has been true since the beginning of class distinctions.

The Lost-G.I. straddler elite didn't seem to have this problem in the middle of the 20th Century; today's Silent-Boomer straddler elite has it big time.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Most professional atheists fail the test for true atheism, on either or both of the following grounds: 1) They bash only Christianity - not the other faiths, especially Islam; and 2) A true atheist maintains strict neutrality between G-d and Satan; the phonies never attack Satan.

What, exactly, is a "professional atheist"? The only type of people I can think of are the likes of Bill Maher or Sam Harris--examples you yourself used that certainly have no problem attacking Islam (and perhaps excessively so). And being a "true" atheist doesn't have a complicated test at all--you are one if you lack a belief in any supernatural power(s).

Madelyn Murray O'Hair called the devil "a nice guy" on I believe it was Merv Griffin's show; and the whole multicultural left (who I assume are atheists) makes excuses for Muslim misogyny and homophobia at every turn.

If atheists - or at least those who speak publicly - observed a "Fairness Doctrine," I would be more favorably disposed to them.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Most professional atheists fail the test for true atheism, on either or both of the following grounds: 1) They bash only Christianity - not the other faiths, especially Islam; and 2) A true atheist maintains strict neutrality between G-d and Satan; the phonies never attack Satan.

I wasn't aware that being an atheist was a job. Know where I could get on that "Not believing in a god gravy train"? It has to pay better than what I do. Now if you mean people who advocate atheism publicly, you would have to include me, Carl Sagan, and many others and I will bash any faith without regard to what it is. I find them all equally reprehensible.

As to point 2. An atheist sees no reason to distinguish between YHWH and Satan. Basically, with this Christians were not happy with just having one imaginary friend, they needed four: The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost and Satan. Satan is basically just god, but evil. There is no evidence for him either. There isn't any evidence for Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, or Quetzalcoatl.

Two wrongs don't make a right: Just because Christians have, undeniably, been the perpetrators of unfair treatment in the past, doesn't mean that they ought to be targets of unfair treatment in the present and/or future - as in being made to "put a sock in it" about things they consider to be immoral. You don't remedy discrimination with more discrimination.

Your strawman is full of straw. I pointed out that they have this complex, reguardless of the fact that Christians are the majority religion in this country. That evangelicals have this particular psychological complex is more telling of those individuals than it is of Christianity or even Christians in general.

Now don't get me wrong here, some Christians do need to put a sock in it. Westboro Baptist Church for example. I once told my father that should Jesus come back he is far more likely to be pissed off at him (and he's an evangelical minister) than he would be at me (an atheist queer). If you read your New Testament you will find that Jesus had the most problems not with the whores, tax collectors and the destitute but with the Priests and Scribes in the Temple. I think that is pretty telling about him, assuming he actually was a real person and not a composite of about a half dozen Jewish Messiahs running around Palestine at the time.

The Lost-G.I. straddler elite didn't seem to have this problem in the middle of the 20th Century; today's Silent-Boomer straddler elite has it big time.

The Lost-GI elite had to contend with the Great Depression and the very real threat that they might just find their head on the nearest pike if they weren't at least a little more generous than the current elite. The rule holds true even in that case, it wasn't an obligation out of nobility (the essence of noblesse oblige) that caused the Lost-GI elite to behave the way they did, rather it was the very real fear of open class warfare.

You can't make a deal if you're dead. Rule of Acquisition 125.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

the whole multicultural left (who I assume are atheists) makes excuses for Muslim misogyny and homophobia at every turn.

I'm not sure who you're classifying under the "multicultural left", but in the US at least, I would guess that would include blacks and Hispanics, who certainly are more often than not quite religious.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by B Butler

I think Reagan introduced a big change. Traditionally, economic conservatives would pay their bills, not run a deficit. They viewed government much like a big business. When things are slow, you cut back on spending and don't run up a big debt. You hunker down until things kick alive again.

The Democrats around FDR's time bought into Keynes, which says the above is wrong. Government spending in bad times can kick things alive. One can accept debt in bad times, but should pay it off in good times.

From Reagan on, the "economic conservatives" seem to believe that if deficit spending stimulates the economy in bad times, it must be a fine thing in good times as well. They have been stimulating the economy with more and more debt come rain or come shine. This to me is not 'conservative'. It is reckless and stupid.

This was because, in spite of some "Conservative" rhetoric regarding social issues, geopolitics and selected economic themes, Reagan never really stopped being a New Dealer.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

I'm not sure who you're classifying under the "multicultural left", but in the US at least, I would guess that would include blacks and Hispanics, who certainly are more often than not quite religious.

He's alluding to whites (and culturally white people of color) who have a multicultural viewpoint (hello EtG!).

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

He's alluding to whites (and culturally white people of color) who have a multicultural viewpoint (hello EtG!).

Even among white multiculturists, I would guess that most are not atheists. They may be members of liberal Christian or Jewish denominations or some sort of New Agey group.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... Now don't get me wrong here, some Christians do need to put a sock in it. Westboro Baptist Church for example. I once told my father that should Jesus come back he is far more likely to be pissed off at him (and he's an evangelical minister) than he would be at me (an atheist queer). If you read your New Testament you will find that Jesus had the most problems not with the whores, tax collectors and the destitute but with the Priests and Scribes in the Temple. I think that is pretty telling about him, assuming he actually was a real person and not a composite of about a half dozen Jewish Messiahs running around Palestine at the time...

The composite Jesus is actually pretty likely. I think the persistence of Jesus stories make the likelihood of an historical Jesus almost a certainty, but 'he' might be 'they', and not necessarily all male either. A lot of this is due to the similarities in lifestyle of the early Christians to that of the much more numerous Essenes which were well documented by several noted historians of the time.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Most professional atheists fail the test for true atheism, on either or both of the following grounds: 1) They bash only Christianity - not the other faiths, especially Islam; and 2) A true atheist maintains strict neutrality between G-d and Satan; the phonies never attack Satan.

"No true Scotsman".

Is Satan real? Or is the entity nothing more than a perverse superego and infantile id working in destructive harmony?

I am beginning to see "Satan" as the greatest dramatic character who ever existed. He has been everywhere. He is the greatest adventurer ever. He's afraid of no fire, battlefield, ship sinking, vehicle collision, building collapse, torture chamber, or execution. Don't give him credit for courage; he always comes out none the worse for wear -- and he often made the situation possible. (Hint about that one-character play I have been thinking of). If he is real, he's not going to like being exposed for the cheat, liar, and sadist that he is.

Two wrongs don't make a right: Just because Christians have, undeniably, been the perpetrators of unfair treatment in the past, doesn't mean that they ought to be targets of unfair treatment in the present and/or future - as in being made to "put a sock in it" about things they consider to be immoral. You don't remedy discrimination with more discrimination.

Christianity is a brass target for rhetorical barbs because it is so commonplace and because Christians and Christian organizations are terribly imperfect despite the claim of most Christian organizations to make people good.

(to) I would argue that for every plutocrat with a sense of noblesse oblige there are ten who just don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves unless it affects their bottom line (excluding perhaps immediate family--that seems to be hard wired into people who aren't total sociopaths). I would further argue that this has been true since the beginning of class distinctions.


The Lost-G.I. straddler elite didn't seem to have this problem in the middle of the 20th Century; today's Silent-Boomer straddler elite has it big time.

Lost and early-wave GI adults knew personal deprivation and sacrifice. Late-wave Silent knew few sacrifices, and Boomer elites have generally avoided any hardships bigger than tennis elbow. The sorts of people who believe that their hangnails are greater tragedies to the world than than others' third-degree burns, pancreatic cancer, missing and endangered children, and such. That is pathological leadership that infests politics, corporate bureaucracies, and other commanding heights of American life.

Pathological leadership either implodes or takes down much of the rest of the world in a 4T. It is your choice on what you think will happen this time. Missionary leadership was far better and got nearly the best results that America could have gotten in view of the worst economic meltdown in American history and having to wage war against two of the most dangerous Evil Empires to have ever existed. If America should be the Evil Empire, then we Americans stand to get the worst in the world and lose the most.

Of course it is the Boom-X leadership that we have during the Crisis Era that will get us into or through the Crisis. Barack Obama notwithstanding (I see him as pre-seasonal, not post-seasonal), early-wave X leadership isn't so great so far.

Oh, by the way -- after the Crisis of 2020, American leadership will resemble Barack Obama in political behavior.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Oh, by the way -- after the Crisis of 2020, American leadership will resemble Barack Obama in political behavior.

I'm not confident I understand what you are saying here. I know I was already disappointed with Obama when he started appointing Wall Street insiders to all the important financial posts. This to me said the "Change" propaganda was talk, there would be no action. I sort of understood when he avoided picking fights he wasn't going to win. I understood, but wasn't pleased. The Democrats win the presidency promising things like "Hope" and "Change." If they want a critical mass of The People behind them, they have to at least try to deliver.

On the turning theory side, there ought to be a difference between 4T leadership and 1T leadership. 4T leaders are desperately trying to find stuff that works. They go all out until the problems are fixed. 1Ts are conservative. People have seen enough upheaval and conflict and want no more. 1T leaders will formulate the lessons of prior 4T, ritualize the lessons into rules, and try to enforce the rules.

Obama feels more 3T. He got a health care plan through and little else. His time was filled with talk, compromise and stagnation. Given the nature of his conservative opposition, this was understandable, perhaps inevitable. Still, the behavior of a 1T political leader who picked up the presidency from a triumphant 4T president would be quite different.

Originally Posted by B Butler

We don't agree on a lot on these forums. We have lots of mostly Blues, lots of Mostly Reds, some rogues and Eric's psychedelic spinning rock n roll flowers.

Eric's bud flowers, sure. Bud flowers are green, Bob.

At a base level, I think a lot of us will agree on a few basics. Today's government and elite culture is badly broken, stagnated, and not addressing real needs. However, there will be serious disagreement on what precisely is most broken, what needs are the greatest.

So true. I think we all have our own mental image of how to play a virtual Sim Nation.^TM The blues would be plopping wind farms and solar power plants, while the reds would be plopping coal, natural gas, and oil plants. I don't think you can zone for pot farms though. Red Sim Nation would have dum dum Sims because Reds don't give a hoot about education. I think the Red Sims would die earlier because the Red Sim Nation player wouldn't plop a clinic. The water ways would become a big stink from the sewage.

The Blue Sim City player has a challenge though. He has to mange to successfully transition from a Red Sim Nation to a Blue one without tossing all the Sims out of work. If you educate your Sims too quickly, you get an industrial base/worker mismatch and your Nation gets abandoned. IOW, it's harder to play Blue than Red.

Of course, the answer is for the country to adopt the personal values and world view of the person writing the post. In that, you (Cynic) are no different from any of the rest of us, including myself.

CH can write his own game module for Sim City.

As far as I know there is no one else contributing to these boards that advocate autocratic military values and government? (Well, Virgil Saari would advocate the return to power of this or that royal dynasty, but he seldom if ever advocated militarism.) I have encountered no one in the real world who is looking for a return to military autocratic rule.

His module would need zoning for arms industry. He'd also need a building for a junta for plopping.
Virgil needs a castle for plopping.

Does anyone else have any interest at all in the country going that way? Is Cynic the Only Restoree?

When I play, I play Blue Sim player. That's how I know it's hard to make the switch from a dirty industry/power plant at the start and move to a greener city. Sim City has a bunch of triage built into it.