Yesterday, my daughter's friend Vera had one of those finger fortune tellers (where you pick a color, then a number, then another number, then another number, and then ask a question and get an answer.

I asked "Are we in a Fourth Turning?".

The fortune teller's response: "Probably".

For what its worth! :smile:

On 2002-07-04 00:54, Eric A Meece wrote:
Regarding my post above about this being the cyclic return of the Wars of the Roses...

The Red Rose, and the White, circa 1460.

The Red Zone, and the Blue, circa 2000....

I'm new to these posts... could you guys tell me what you mean by red zone and blue zone?

A "red zone" is that area of the country inhabited by gun-totin', God-fearin', Bush-lovin' Nazis. And all the rest ("blue zones) are the beautiful people like Tom Cruise, Rosanne and folks that like Al Gore a lot.

The Red zone is the people who love God and Country and believe in The Constitution, and are willling to defend those beliefs till the death because, they know they are good and right and true.

The Blue Zone is full of spineless, Socialists who wear their emotions on their sleave. Don't think for themselves and want to give our freedoms away to the likes of Castro.

_________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - JFK

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-05 19:01 ]</font>

On 2002-07-05 11:46, Jenny Genser wrote:
Yesterday, my daughter's friend Vera had one of those finger fortune tellers (where you pick a color, then a number, then another number, then another number, and then ask a question and get an answer.

I asked "Are we in a Fourth Turning?".

The fortune teller's response: "Probably".

For what its worth! :smile:

Someone should go and ask the Magic 8-Ball and see if it agrees :smile:

On 2002-07-05 13:43, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-07-04 00:54, Eric A Meece wrote:
Regarding my post above about this being the cyclic return of the Wars of the Roses...

The Red Rose, and the White, circa 1460.

The Red Zone, and the Blue, circa 2000....

I'm new to these posts... could you guys tell me what you mean by red zone and blue zone?

In the election maps in 2000, regions (states or counties, depending on the map) in which more people voted for Gore than Bush were colored blue and regions in which more people voted for Bush than Gore were colored red.

The county-by-county map showed a large number of red counties (which became known as the "Red Zone") and a somewhat smaller number of blue counties (which became known as the "Blue Zone"); this is all that red/blue means - nothing more than whether more people in a given county voted for Bush or Gore in 2000. HTH

On 2002-07-05 20:19, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-05 11:46, Jenny Genser wrote:
Yesterday, my daughter's friend Vera had one of those finger fortune tellers (where you pick a color, then a number, then another number, then another number, and then ask a question and get an answer.

I asked "Are we in a Fourth Turning?".

The fortune teller's response: "Probably".

For what its worth! :smile:

Someone should go and ask the Magic 8-Ball and see if it agrees :smile:

Sources point to no :grin:

"How much did people trust the government during the first half of the Great Depression?"

If one honestly studies the course of the New Deal, one can only come the conclusion that the benighted masses "trusted" the government, no matter how ridiculous their "experiments" might look in hindsight, to overcome the abject failure of the private sector from 1933 onward.

Of course, much of this history is now shrouded in myth and the politics of revisionism... but the truth is there to see.

If only one wishes to see it. :smile:

On 2002-07-05 13:43, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-07-04 00:54, Eric A Meece wrote:
Regarding my post above about this being the cyclic return of the Wars of the Roses...

The Red Rose, and the White, circa 1460.

The Red Zone, and the Blue, circa 2000....

I'm new to these posts... could you guys tell me what you mean by red zone and blue zone?

It comes from the red and blue colors used in network election coverage in the 2000 Presidental election. Those counties that voted majority Bush are the Red Zone, those counties that voted majority Gore are the Blue Zone.

The reason the phrases have come into common use in some circles is that they seem, very loosely, to describe the two general cultural groupings in the USA.

In the stereotype, Blue Zone thinking is secular, pluralistic, and tends to see human beings as perfectible and religion as a private matter, irrelevant or dangerous to the state and public affairs. In theory the Blue Zone sees the government as the primary bond hold the USA together.

Equally stereotypically, the Red Zone is highly traditional, Christian or traditional Jewish, and tend to regard things like gun ownership, private property, and traditional marriage patterns as being settled and not open to debate. They tend, in theory, to regard a common English language and common religious and cultural traditions as the primary glue binding the USA together, actually more importantly than the state.

Both versions radically oversimplify, but do contain a certain amount of truth. Each group likes to believe that the majority of America shares their basic views, in fact the two general viewpoints are balanced with almost frightening precise equality.

Each side tends to see the other as being dangerously out of touch with reality.

All this doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that all elections will be 50/50 equal in every case.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-06 00:07 ]</font>

I think I see what you mean, but bearing in mind that if a county is won by Gore with only 51%, that does not make it full of Atheists, Soccer Moms, Minorities, etc. Just as with a 51% Bush county is not full of gun toting southern inbred hicks. Or even northern hicks.

Here's how I would define it: I'm going to do it by region, but bear in mind that in landslide years these do not count:

Blue Zones: Pacific States, Eastern Portions of the Upper Midwest, and the Northeast.

Red Zones: Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, Southwest, and the Southeast. Also, when I looked at that county map, I noticed something. You could call the Mississippi River a blue zone if you do it by county.

On 2002-07-05 20:19, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-05 11:46, Jenny Genser wrote:
Yesterday, my daughter's friend Vera had one of those finger fortune tellers (where you pick a color, then a number, then another number, then another number, and then ask a question and get an answer.

I asked "Are we in a Fourth Turning?".

The fortune teller's response: "Probably".

For what its worth! :smile:

Someone should go and ask the Magic 8-Ball and see if it agrees :smile:

I consulted my kids' Magic 8 Ball, and the answer was "as I see it, Yes!"

On 2002-07-06 08:48, AlexMnWi wrote:
I think I see what you mean, but bearing in mind that if a county is won by Gore with only 51%, that does not make it full of Atheists, Soccer Moms, Minorities, etc. Just as with a 51% Bush county is not full of gun toting southern inbred hicks. Or even northern hicks.

True, and that's why I qualified it words like 'loosely' and 'stereotypically'.

Here's how I would define it: I'm going to do it by region, but bear in mind that in landslide years these do not count:

Blue Zones: Pacific States, Eastern Portions of the Upper Midwest, and the Northeast.

Red and Blue overlap in the Upper Midwest. This is one of the last redoubts of non-public organized labor as a political force, and this subgroup tends to vote Democratic but thinks somewhat Red Zone-ish.

The Northeast Corridor, the Northwest, and metro-California are the heart of the Blue Zone.

Red Zones: Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, Southwest, and the Southeast. Also, when I looked at that county map, I noticed something. You could call the Mississippi River a blue zone if you do it by county.

Those counties are in many cases heavily minority-occupied, producing another area which votes Blue and thinks more than slightly Red.

On 2002-07-06 15:02, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Red and Blue overlap in the Upper Midwest. This is one of the last redoubts of non-public organized labor as a political force, and this subgroup tends to vote Democratic but thinks somewhat Red Zone-ish.

Actually, I was doing it by state, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan is why I said "Eastern."

The City of Minneapolis is blue zone for two reasons: 1: Minorities. 2: The Bay Area types living in "Uptown" and other such areas.

Most of the land is red zone, but a majority of the people vote blue zone.

Americans call for George Michael to leave.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...025920,00.html

I would certainly hope that we will come to see ourselves as Americans first and foremost during this 4T, rather than as a mere afterthought. Our survival as a people may depend on it!

I certainly think survival as a people could depend on us seeing ourselves as citizens of the world first; otherwise we could be led into a destructive war or pursue our "national interest" in hogging the world's resources at the expense of other peoples.

A "red zone" is that area of the country inhabited by gun-totin', God-fearin', Bush-lovin' Nazis. And all the rest ("blue zones") are the beautiful people like Tom Cruise, Rosanne and folks that like Al Gore a lot.

That sums it up nicely :smile:

The Red zone is the people who love God and Country and believe in The Constitution, and are willing to defend those beliefs till the death because, they know they are good and right and true.

The Blue Zone is full of spineless Socialists who wear their emotions on their sleave. Don't think for themselves and want to give our freedoms away to the likes of Castro.

Does each zone have misconceptions about the other? No doubt. In a climate of crisis it may be impossible for some people to see these. Obviously blue zoners are not "socialists" who want to give their freedoms away, but they do believe government is needed to regulate greed and wealth, and don't equate freedom with free enterprise. And of course, the red zoners are not Nazis. The Nazi-Commie clash is from the previous 4T, not the upcoming one. It may do us well to keep that in mind.

Those who think a purple Gray Champion could arise, are hoping for a morally-pure and courageous version of Bill Clinton, or a George Bush who is genuinely compassionate and smart enough to exercize it.

I suspect that the red zone and blue zone ideals and principles can't really be "compromised" like that, and one will have to emerge victorious. That does not mean that each side cannot update their principles to fit current realities. Most liberals, for example, admit that recipients of welfare need to be asked to take more responsibility for themselves. How that is done is the issue.

Some issues like gun control may be able to be solved through laws applied differently in different regions.

Can red zoners like "justmom" see that many blue zoners love God and Country, though not in the same way they do? Does God have to be the Christian fundamentalist God? Does "love of country" mean love it as it is no matter what it does, like sheep rather than citizens of a democracy with freedom of speech and thought?

On 2002-07-08 01:06, Eric A Meece wrote:

I certainly think survival as a people could depend on us seeing ourselves as citizens of the world first; otherwise we could be led into a destructive war or pursue our "national interest" in hogging the world's resources at the expense of other peoples.

Ok Eric, you have been talking about this World Government business for a while. How about defining it for us? How exactly in your opinion would such an entity govern? Would Nukes then belong to all people everywhere? Would we all "vote" with each former country getting a vote? If not then how do you balance the needs of one group of people over another? Does each country become a state in the world government? How do you then merge economic systems? Who's system of laws do we use? Who's methods of determining guilt? Which methods of enforcement do we use? With all the "cultural relativism" out there, how do we work out who's right in these and other ethical issues?

When you have ironed those out, post them up and I will have more for you. It's all very nice to speak of a one world government and being a citizen of the world, but it is another thing to even begin the process of making it be.

My opinion? Humanity isn't ready for it yet, and won't be for several turnings. Even if we in the US - (you know, we Neanderthals who the Europeans and Russians and everyone else are SO much more enlightened than?) - even if we were ready for it, how would you implement it without other nations just using it as an opportunity to get what they want from us. No, I realize not all of the other nations of the world want us dead and our treasures theirs, but SOMEBODY flew planes into the WTC last fall, and guys like Sadam are still running their own little patches of dirt too. Do you want them to be part of this New Age Order too?

Lets see some of those plans of yours.

On 2002-07-08 12:12, Earthshine wrote:

On 2002-07-08 01:06, Eric A Meece wrote:

I certainly think survival as a people could depend on us seeing ourselves as citizens of the world first; otherwise we could be led into a destructive war or pursue our "national interest" in hogging the world's resources at the expense of other peoples.

Ok Eric, you have been talking about this World Government business for a while. How about defining it for us?

OK Earthshine; but I haven't been talking much about world government. On the new survey thread (I forgot the name), I mentioned some of the parameters I would like to see. But first, please be clear. You don't have to be under a world government, or even advocate one, to recognize that you are a citizen of the world. How does that follow? It is a matter of recognizing one's true identity as a child and expression of God and Planet Earth and as a member of Humanity.

How exactly in your opinion would such an entity govern? Would Nukes then belong to all people everywhere?

That makes sense. It's what was already proposed and scuttled by the Cold War back in 1945.

Would we all "vote" with each former country getting a vote? If not then how do you balance the needs of one group of people over another? Does each country become a state in the world government?

That would be pretty much like the UN is now. That might work.

How do you then merge economic systems? Who's system of laws do we use? Who's methods of determining guilt? Which methods of enforcement do we use? With all the "cultural relativism" out there, how do we work out who's right in these and other ethical issues?

There's a lot of common opinion. There are fewer and fewer states out there who don't believe in basic human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights already exists and is decades old.

I think the world government will be an extension and revision of those institutions that already exist. Most affairs and powers would still be at the local level, but world bodies can act as a check on conflicts and ambitions that get out of hand.

The world economy is pretty well blended already. Perhaps too much so. Capitalists need to realize the limits of their system. Events like Enron/Worldcom bring us a bit closer to this realization. A corporate economy will need to learn some things from socialism and Green ideas, and meanwhile the remaining Communist systems are opening up to trade. We would do well not to believe (as the freemarketeers in the media do) that the socialists need to adopt Western corporate ways entirely. A more mixed system needs to evolve.

My opinion? Humanity isn't ready for it yet, and won't be for several turnings. Even if we in the US - (you know, we Neanderthals who the Europeans and Russians and everyone else are SO much more enlightened than?) - even if we were ready for it, how would you implement it without other nations just using it as an opportunity to get what they want from us. No, I realize not all of the other nations of the world want us dead and our treasures theirs, but SOMEBODY flew planes into the WTC last fall, and guys like Sadam are still running their own little patches of dirt too. Do you want them to be part of this New Age Order too?

We are farther along than provincial and imperialistic, fearful Americans "worried about their treasure" think. The Europeans are already doing it. Other regions are pooling their energies and powers too. Eventually (and sooner rather than later) we'll all pool (pull) together. The more we venture into space, outer and inner, the more we will realize that we are citizens of one planet among many others. We will then have our interests as planet Earth to maintain, as we deal with other races and beings out there.

The world government would be a splendid way of keeping rogue idiots like Saddam and OBL in their place. The world has already proven it will back us up in this when we are correct.

I'm not worried about nations getting what they want from us. Perhaps you can enlighten me or refresh my memory what you are worried about. It seems to me that our trade policies are created by American corporations and their political apologists who are as eager as punch to JUST GIVE AWAY all our living standards and quality of life protections as fast as they can.

I AM worried about globalism becoming corporate dominated; it will be a struggle to make the world society as fair as possible for everyone, and not a platform for an elite to dominate and exploit people and the environment and make everything in all cultures uniformly commercial like the USA is. THAT is the danger I see, not that other nations will steal from America. But perhaps I'm wrong; make me see.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-08 15:17 ]</font>

I'm sure Marc Lamb will jump up and down in joy when he sees this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world...08-3102700.htm

On 2002-07-08 17:11, madscientist wrote:
I'm sure Marc Lamb will jump up and down in joy when he sees this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world...08-3102700.htm

No doubt he will, though whether from seeing Former President Clinton in legal trouble again, or from seeing President Bush's fears of politically motivated prosecutions of Americans by international courts being borne out, remains to be seen.

On 2002-07-08 19:33, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-07-08 17:11, madscientist wrote:
I'm sure Marc Lamb will jump up and down in joy when he sees this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world...08-3102700.htm

No doubt he will, though whether from seeing Former President Clinton in legal trouble again, or from seeing President Bush's fears of politically motivated prosecutions of Americans by international courts being borne out, remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see defenders of American sovereignty on the right defending Clinton from the ICC. Strange bedfellows or something like that.

"I'm sure Marc Lamb will jump up and down in joy when he sees this:"

Finally, a liberal gets bitten by his own stupid, idiotic policy!

Too bad, the GOP (ie., Mr. Hyde, the Bush "new tone") will be there to mop up the damn liberal mess once again, restore America's soverignty, and save Mr. Clinton's ass to boot.

Funny thing though, the latest Gallup Poll (not being reported in the media, btw) show that a full 51% believe Mr. Clinton's behavior was responsible for the recent scandals on Wall Street.

<center>

:lol: </center>

On 2002-07-08 19:49, Steve Barrera '66 wrote:

On 2002-07-08 19:33, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-07-08 17:11, madscientist wrote:
I'm sure Marc Lamb will jump up and down in joy when he sees this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world...08-3102700.htm

No doubt he will, though whether from seeing Former President Clinton in legal trouble again, or from seeing President Bush's fears of politically motivated prosecutions of Americans by international courts being borne out, remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see defenders of American sovereignty on the right defending Clinton from the ICC. Strange bedfellows or something like that.

Well, while this particular instance will probably come to naught soon, it does point up the problems. The ICC is an attempt to create a judicial organ in response to a world community that doesn't exist.

I don't recall seeing this one posted:


Mossad chief: WWIII started Sept. 11

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28179