Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You don't have the time nor the means to examine each snake, even if you wanted to. You have to make a decision right now. The box is on your doorstep.

What's more, the people down the street just brought a full box inside, and now half that household is dead.

I am not saying you do not interrogate them, but basing it on a religion? No that is unacceptable. Another method is needed.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I would rather be for equality and acceptance than be a judgemental superficial person who judges someone purely on looks or religion. Not all are the same.

Even if that results in you being blown up by a terrorist? I just want to know how far your commitment goes.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I am not saying you do not interrogate them, but basing it on a religion? No that is unacceptable. Another method is needed.

Even though the terrorist ideology is rooted in Islam, and all of its practitioners are Muslims? Are you serious? This is what I mean when I say denying reality for the sake of ideological dogma. It's insane.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Even if that results in you being blown up by a terrorist? I just want to know how far your commitment goes.

I foresee you are going to have an unfortunate time in the first turning if you judge people purely on religion.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I foresee you are going to have an unfortunate time in the first turning if you judge people purely on religion.

I see that you did not answer my question. And you also should be aware the "first turning" is established and led by "Nomads".

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Even though the terrorist ideology is rooted in Islam, and all of its practitioners are Muslims? Are you serious? This is what I mean when I say denying reality for the sake of ideological dogma. It's insane.

Actually, instead of judging them i listen and muslims all say that is not what their religion is about. They are extremists and religions all have their extremists. If we are to address the issue of terrorism we must not make all muslims resent us. That will only feed ISIS.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I see that you did not answer my question. And you also should be aware the "first turning" is established and led by "Nomads".

I did not answer because i do not agree with you. So it would be a waste of time answering you.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I see that you did not answer my question. And you also should be aware the "first turning" is established and led by "Nomads".

First turnings are dominated by civics

Originally Posted by Taramarie

First turnings are dominated by civics

Incorrect. We're talking about leadership here, meaning those running societal institutions. The 1T becomes the 2T when Civics take over leadership. In the last US 2T, the presidents were all GIs - Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (there were so many because only one of them made it through two full terms). In the 1T, the presidents were Lost - Truman and Eisenhower.

1T - Nomad
2T - Civic
3T - Artist
4T - Prophet

If you're focusing on the young adults or early midlife cohort, you're focusing on the wrong group. Boomers may have been a "big deal" during the 2T, but they were operating under GI leadership. The conflict between "Prophet" youth and their "Civic" parents was known as the "generation gap" back then. The 1T is characterized by Nomad leaders and their Artist children.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Incorrect. We're talking about leadership here, meaning those running societal institutions. The 1T becomes the 2T when Civics take over leadership. In the last US 2T, the presidents were all GIs - Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (there were so many because only one of them made it through two full terms). In the 1T, the presidents were Lost - Truman and Eisenhower.

I did not say they were leaders, I said they are dominated by civics. The civics are the majority given that the nomads are a smaller generation in comparison. But they need the civic majority vote.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I did not say they were leaders, I said they are dominated by civics. The civics are the majority given that the nomads are a smaller generation in comparison. But they need the civic majority vote.

Nope, you're focusing on the wrong thing (and displaying a bit of stereotypical Millenial narcissism). This is how it generally works - when a new generation comes of age, society "notices" them and makes a big deal out of them. For Xers that was the 80s and 90s. For Millenials, the 00s and 10s. Then the cohort enters young adulthood, where they generally "go quiet" as they establish themselves, focusing on careers and family and so forth. During that time period, their influence on society is at its lowest ebb. Once the previous generation ages out of leadership, they take over. It even happened to Boomers, although they were large enough (much larger than Millenials or Xers relative to their time) that their "thirtysomething" (TV show reference, you can look it up) period was shorter than most. The list I gave you above is the way it works:

1T - Nomad
2T - Civic
3T - Artist
4T - Prophet

During the 1T, Civics are young adults, focused inward on their lives, and not yet in positions of leadership.

This is all according to S&H, which means it has to be taken with a grain of salt. If nothing else, they woefully over-exaggerate Prophets and Civics, while practically ignoring Artists and Nomads - because they were Boomers, and that's the way Boomers roll.

The last US 1T was characterized by Dwight Eisenhower (Nomad) and the youth culture of rock 'n roll, hot rods and so forth (Artists). There was not much notable about the 1T from GIs. They were populating the new suburbs, producing the Baby Boom.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nope, you're focusing on the wrong thing (and displaying a bit of stereotypical Millenial narcissism). This is how it generally works - when a new generation comes of age, society "notices" them and makes a big deal out of them. For Xers that was the 80s and 90s. For Millenials, the 00s and 10s. Then the cohort enters young adulthood, where they generally "go quiet" as they establish themselves, focusing on careers and family and so forth. Once they've done that, and the previous generation ages out of leadership, they take over. The list I gave you above is the way it works:

1T - Nomad
2T - Civic
3T - Artist
4T - Prophet

During the 1T, Civics are young adults, focused inward on their lives, and not yet in positions of leadership.

This is all according to S&H, which means it has to be taken with a grain of salt. If nothing else, they woefully over-exaggerate Prophets and Civics, while practically ignoring Artists and Nomads - because they were Boomers, and that's the way Boomers roll.

It is not millennial narcissism I am displaying. I just listened to strauss and howe when they connect the 1st turning to the civics. As you made a fair and reasonable point, I listen to that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

satisfying their selfish desires at the expense of others.

That's what the bosses who have benefited from Reaganomics have done, since the decade of greed.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

It is not millennial narcissism I am displaying. I just listened to strauss and howe when they connect the 1st turning to the civics. As you made a fair and reasonable point, I listen to that.

Check my additional edit. It should be clearer.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Check my additional edit. It should be clearer.

ok will do

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's what the bosses who have benefited from Reaganomics have done, since the decade of greed.

Yeah. Or all of the Boomers who ditched their families because they weren't "fulfilled", leaving a bunch of kids from broken homes or born out of wedlock, knowing nothing else, and economically disadvantaged because of it. That's Reagan's fault too, right? Everything is Reagan's fault. Despite him being consistently the most popular and successful president of the last 70+ years.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nope, you're focusing on the wrong thing (and displaying a bit of stereotypical Millenial narcissism). This is how it generally works - when a new generation comes of age, society "notices" them and makes a big deal out of them. For Xers that was the 80s and 90s. For Millenials, the 00s and 10s. Then the cohort enters young adulthood, where they generally "go quiet" as they establish themselves, focusing on careers and family and so forth. During that time period, their influence on society is at its lowest ebb. Once the previous generation ages out of leadership, they take over. It even happened to Boomers, although they were large enough (much larger than Millenials or Xers relative to their time) that their "thirtysomething" (TV show reference, you can look it up) period was shorter than most. The list I gave you above is the way it works:

1T - Nomad
2T - Civic
3T - Artist
4T - Prophet

During the 1T, Civics are young adults, focused inward on their lives, and not yet in positions of leadership.

This is all according to S&H, which means it has to be taken with a grain of salt. If nothing else, they woefully over-exaggerate Prophets and Civics, while practically ignoring Artists and Nomads - because they were Boomers, and that's the way Boomers roll.

The last US 1T was characterized by Dwight Eisenhower (Nomad) and the youth culture of rock 'n roll, hot rods and so forth (Artists). There was not much notable about the 1T from GIs. They were populating the new suburbs, producing the Baby Boom.

Interesting, so what can you characterize the 2nd turning with in connection to GI influence?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Ok, you have clearly absorbed the Boomer dogma. Now let me give you some Xer reality. Comparing Muslims of today to Jews of WWII is not merely wrong, it is intellectually and morally reprehensible. Who are the Jews of today? The Jews. Which happens to be the people the Muslims most want to wipe off the face of the earth, which everyone knows unless they jam their fingers in their ears, blind themselves and listen to Boomer nonsense instead of looking at what's in front of them. Not only that, you are implying that countries rightly suspicious of Muslims are the modern equivalent of Nazi Germany. The left wing governments and politicians that continue to prioritize this kind of twisted political correctness and identity politics over the security of their citizens are the modern equivalent of? Neville Chamberlain. If you don't know who he is, look him up. He attempted to negotiate a peace deal with the Nazis. The US has a president who just agreed to a treaty with Iran. Expect the same results.

Let's not make peace treaties with governments that might attack us; let's just bomb them I guess. Anything else is "Boomer nonsense." OK....

Let's be suspicious of all "Muslims." OK, never mind that only a few Muslims are terrorists, and that the Jews support armies of occupation.

Any government that prioritizes appeasing enemies or importing immigrants over the safety and well-being of its own citizens is illegitimate. And that is the Boomer "leadership" we now have. It cannot hold, any more than Chamberlain's "leadership" of the UK.

So Obama is "Boomer leadership appeasing enemies," now, and importing immigrants, "over" safety of US citizens. The USA should no longer be a country of immigrants fleeing oppression, then. OK, what is American then? Is there a statue dedicated to your version of America?

Now, if you want to find an analogy for Muslims in Western countries today, you would be on firmer ground to look at the treatment of German and Japanese citizens in those countries during WWII. Boomers have universally genuflected with remorse on behalf of the GIs and FDR for the fact that Japanese residents of the US were rounded up and put into internment camps. But go back in time to a circumstance where Japan had carried out a catastrophic sneak attack on US soil, starting a war of their own choosing, and it becomes more understandable. The West has likewise edged up under Boomer leadership towards condemning the US use of nuclear weapons against Japan. But when you consider that they started the war, and millions of US soldiers would have been subject to death under a continued conflict, in addition to those who had already been tortured, imprisoned, starved and died on forced marches after being captured by the Japanese, and that become more understandable as well.

Which Boomers are OK with prison camps in America now? Would you be any more successful in THAT generalization than you were in saying that all red boomers are passive? Quote me some boomers.

None of these things may be what you would hope for in an ideal (there's that word again) world, but sometimes reality gets ugly. Sometimes the truth hurts. And if Muslims fleeing Syria don't find safe harbor in Western countries, those countries are not to blame, ISIS is. Furthermore, WHY is it the responsibility of far off Western countries to take in these refugees, when neighboring Muslim countries are refusing them? It's all political correctness to the point of suicide. The Boomers may want to take us there, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't want to go along.

Europe has interfered in the Middle East for centuries, often to ill effect. Maybe that's a good enough "why." And I suppose "Boomers" like Donald Trump, Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee want to take us there? ISIS is to blame? I guess the blame doesn't have to go to the tyrant who has killed 250,000 of their people, then? And instead put it on the group that just came in to take advantage of the chaos he caused? Is this your Xer version of "reality?"

I appreciate that you are here expressing opposite views to mine, but do you really have to make it THAT easy for me to knock them down, and THAT discrediting to yourself? Even you can do better than that. Try harder, JPT.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You don't have the time nor the means to examine each snake, even if you wanted to. You have to make a decision right now. The box is on your doorstep.

What's more, the people down the street just brought a full box inside, and now half that household is dead.

For the record, I'm not saying all Muslims in western countries should be rounded up and quarantined. At least not as things stand right now. I am saying, without question, that these Syrian refugees should not be brought into those countries. Europe is already paying for it. They should be taken in by neighboring Muslim countries, and if they won't do it, NATO should establish a safe haven in the Middle East where they can be taken. Using military force, if necessary.

At least I hear a little sense from you, finally. Yes we need to establish a safe zone. More to the point, why are you calling for bombing and attacking Iran (the only alternative to the agreement), who has not attacked us, but not for attacking the group that carried out these attacks on us? Can't we rely on a few of these GOP candidates besides Lindsay Graham to call for real action?

Why aren't the Republicans calling for these actions instead of screaming about refugees? How were the Europeans supposed to stop them anyway? Round them up at sea, and bring them to, where, exactly?

Getting back on topic - Delaware doesn't have Xer leadership to speak of, apparently.

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/...f09d5e4e156563

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

... It even happened to Boomers, although they were large enough (much larger than Millenials or Xers relative to their time) that their "thirtysomething" (TV show reference, you can look it up) period was shorter than most. The list I gave you above is the way it works:

Huh?

There isn't that large of a differential in generation sizes.



1. Silent < Boom < X < Millennial.
2. The largest 5 year cohort according to the US census is 1961-1965. That would be the first 5 years of GenX. It's even larger than the largest 5 year cohort group of the Boom, 1956-1960.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

For the record, I'm not saying all Muslims in western countries should be rounded up and quarantined. At least not as things stand right now. I am saying, without question, that these Syrian refugees should not be brought into those countries. Europe is already paying for it. They should be taken in by neighboring Muslim countries, and if they won't do it, NATO should establish a safe haven in the Middle East where they can be taken. Using military force, if necessary.

You're not saying it because you know saying it is socially unacceptable, but deep down inside you and people like you would be perfectly fine with rounding up Muslims and putting them in gas chambers or ovens.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yeah. Or all of the Boomers who ditched their families because they weren't "fulfilled", leaving a bunch of kids from broken homes or born out of wedlock, knowing nothing else, and economically disadvantaged because of it. That's Reagan's fault too, right? Everything is Reagan's fault. Despite him being consistently the most popular and successful president of the last 70+ years.

He was the worst president in all that time, excepting one Boomer one, because of the ideology he established and promoted, and that his Boomer successor carried on, and for all his corruption and bad fiscal and economic policies. His supposed popularity doesn't change his awful record, in which the wealthiest people prospered and everyone else got poorer. Everything isn't Reagan's fault, but certainly his culture and society is the principle aspect of people "pursuing selfish desires."

Yes, that includes some boomers who were "yuppies," and some boomers (but some silents too) who ditched their families or had kids out of wedlock; but most of the latter occurs in the black ghettoes that were left to fester by the Reagan policies. It remains amazing that you see "boomers" from the counterculture pursuing selfish desires, but can't see the folks whom you admire doing that even more clearly. I think you do see, in fact, based on some of your other posts, but when carried away by the heat of your emotional posturing, you can't help overlooking facts that don't support your rants.

And if you think that people should lead unfulfilling lives, then I disagree; surprise surprise.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

All I have to say to you, after watching the Democrats' statements in response to Paris, is that you can go right ahead with your left wing nuttery, but just be aware that the Democrats are going to lose in a landslide if they continue to parrot that kind of dogma. "Bigoted" against people who want to kill you? Oh yeah. Definitely.

Polls show that most Americans and Canadians oppose taking in Syrian refugees.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/564ceccee4b00b7997f90565
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...six-weeks-poll

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Interesting, so what can you characterize the 2nd turning with in connection to GI influence?

They were the leaders. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter. And they hung around with Reagan and Bush in the 3T. Although Carter and Bush were very late GIs, almost Silents, they both served in WWII.

The GIs were what the Boomers were rebelling against. So everything the Boomers hate is what the GIs stood for, roughly speaking. If you're a Civic, that's what you can expect from your kids' generation, if S&H are correct.

If you want specifics from the last time, the biggest area is what Eisenhower called "the military industrial complex". GIs got involved in the war in Viet Nam, and established a draft for Boomers that was the primary cause of their rebellion. GIs took it for granted, since they had all been drafted into WWII, that they should just repeat what they experienced. Boomers didn't want it. Having a draft for a war like Viet Nam was a terrible idea, and opposing that draft is the one thing from the 2T that I can sympathize with. Also the Boomer love of the arts as youth, although their leadership has produced horrible art.

I don't know how much it applies to New Zealand, but in general whatever the Civics take for granted, however they're programmed, that's what they unthinkingly perpetuate once in leadership, and Prophets rebel against it.