Unless marc, we really HAVE nothing better to do. In that case, this site is great fun. It's entertaining and it's fun interaction and enlightening discussion. Even if most of the time we spout off and defend our own opinions, sometimes we learn something.

Posters like justmom add very little to the site. I'm sure as Susan says she is a nice person, when she feels like being nice, and to whom she feels like being nice with. It's good to have conservatives around, and in fact it's more of a challenge to me when they are also intelligent like Mr. Cynic (or even firemind :smile: ). I can't say that justmom exhibited much of that, although I'm sure she could if she chose to.

Of course I'm not as inclined to be as nice as Susan is, especially as she was so unwilling to engage in intelligent discussion with me (as evidenced by her stereotype of me). She seems to me like an example of how some Americans are just not very well educated.

Too bad I have that opinion, but that's how it goes.

I hope monaghan will stick it out and post some more. We are very far apart, but at least there is in my opinion some promise there of intelligent discussion with the people here.

On 2002-07-13 20:07, Eric A Meece wrote:
Unless marc, we really HAVE nothing better to do. In that case, this site is great fun. It's entertaining and it's fun interaction and enlightening discussion. Even if most of the time we spout off and defend our own opinions, sometimes we learn something.

It's my own favorite escape! It also beats television, trashy novels, getting drunk, or eating junk food.
It's food for the mind...and a whole lot more.

HEY! That's a great advertising slogan for us:
Fourthturning.com: It's food for the mind and a whole lot more!

or even
Fourthturning.com: It's not just breakfast anymore
:lol:
:oops:

Well, anyway...

Of course I'm not as inclined to be as nice as Susan is

I think you're nice too Eric, just maybe more opinionated than I am. But thanks for saying that anyway!

In Stonewalls' scenarios different groups made alliances. I imagine that in each case each group in an alliance had to make some compromises on some issues-none would get everything that it wanted. My question to those reading this thread-what compromises would you be willing to make to see society through a time of adversity?

On 2002-07-13 15:51, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-13 13:22, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-13 13:03, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

#1 Libertarian
#2 Left-libertarian
#3 Radical
#4 Paleo-libertarian
#5 Paleoconservative
#6 Conservative
#7 Neoconservative
#8 Centrist
#9 Third Way
#10 Liberal

Pretty cool, Jesse. You are riding that Libertarian Right and Left line so closely that it is difficult to tell which is your primary quadrant. But there is consistency at the bottom of your list. You clean out the Authoritarian Left quadrant as a bloc dead last (and clean out the Authoritarian Right quadrant as a bloc immediately prior). So you have a clear suggestion that your weakest quadrant is the Authoritarian Left. That suggests that your primary is the opposite of the Authoritarian Left which is the Libertarian Right. You are Libertarian Right with a Libertarian Left meld.

I am going to have to start keeping a tally on a document. But I think we are well over 90% with Libertarian Left as either primary or meld. That really ought to be the key to this place.

hmm... Libertarian = #1, Radical = #2, and Left-libertarian = #3; all are either libertarian or left-libertarian; it seems like you're more left-libertarian than anything else, but I'm wondering how you got liberal in dead last! Maybe the test isn't *completely* accurate :razz: ...

He scored both Authoritarian Left entries dead last which suggests that his primary quadrant is opposite the Authoritarian Left, and this would be the Libertarian Right. This method breaks up the "tie" shown at the top of his list as follows:


1) Libertarian = LR
2) Left-Libertarian = LL
3) Radical = LL
4) Paleo-Libertarian = LR


1+4 equals 2+3 so he appears to be on the border between the LR and LL on the basis of this alone. However the test cannot be that precise so we can add precision by considering what turns up last. He hits the AL cleanly last (and the AR cleanly third). His primary quadrant is logically opposite his last one and this is the LR. He is LR with an LL meld.


For reference, in analyzing these things, I exclude Centrist, and I also exclude the third Libertarian Right faction which comes up in any test (and the particular faction varies from individual to individual). In Jesse's case, I exclude Paleo-Conservative, but it will often be Libertarian or Paleo-Libertarian for others. In this way, we end up with eight factions to consider and a uniform two in each quadrant.

On 2002-07-13 16:27, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-13 16:23, Marc Lamb wrote:

Is the test accurate?

Pretty loaded questions, if you ask me.
Example:
15. Do you support taxpayer funded vouchers to help parents send their children to the public or private school of their choice?

Wouldn't a more neutral question read:
15. Do you support a method that would allow parents to send their children to the school of their choice?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-13 16:25 ]</font>

For reasons already debated (that I'm too lazy to go into here), I doubt that vouchers are truly a method that "allow parents to send their children to the school of their choice" - I agree with you that the questions can be pretty loaded but the only loaded words I saw in the original were "taxpayer funded"

William, you are considering two entirely different questions here. Everybody would like to send their kids to the school of their choice so that is a silly question. The question pertains specifically to vouchers and that is an important one. I do not support vouchers because all federal money comes with strings attached. Vouchers will enable the federal government to do to private schools what it has already done to public schools: destroy them. I oppose them but others support them. This is a very good question which draws important distinctions between political factions.

Asking whether you want to send your kid to the school of your choice is about the same as asking whether you would like to drive the car of your choice. Everybody answers yes and it does not capture any factional differences. So it is a silly question.

On 2002-07-13 16:30, cbailey wrote:
If you are attempting to identify a political type...why would you want the questions neutral?

On 2002-07-13 16:45, Marc Lamb wrote:


My point, precisely. :smile:

:???:

A test? A poll?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2002-07-13 22:48 ]</font>

On 2002-07-13 17:08, justmom wrote:

Oh, I see you?ve learned the
art of something called ?compromise?. Why is politics any different?

The point is that we are supposed to have constitutional government in this country which recognizes our individual rights. The federal government's powers are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and confined to that list. There is room for all the compromise in the world so long as we are discussing a power enumerated in that least. There can be no compromise with regard to any power not on that list because the Founding Fathers placed it off the table when they wrote the Constitution (short of future amendment). We have only gotten to the out of control, unconstitutional government we have today by compromising on things which the Founding Fathers did not put on the table for compromise when they wrote the Constitution.

So, yes, there is all the room in the world for compromise, but only in the proper constitutional contexts. To hold otherwise is to hold that we have no Constitution at all (which frankly we do not). Would you "compromise" with someone who demanded that you give up one of your kids and sell him/her into slavery? No? Then why would you compromise on education, for example, when the federal government has no authority, explicit or implied, with respect to it according to the Constitution. Education is a state and local issue, period. There can be no compromise with a usurping federal government on this score.

Bush, you feel sold you out, and now your anger over your perceived injustice
blinds you to any good he might actually accomplish.

You miss the point. Unless, he devolves power and begins returning the federal government to its Constitutional cage, any other "good" he might accomplish is irrelevant. The point here is to restore constitutional government such that we might restore governmental respect for our individual rights. All the "goods" this administration may throw out are intended to buy you off and sufficiently console you such that you might shut up and quit demanding that these Bush people devolve power. The point is that these Bush people are corporatists (mercantilists) who have every bit as much interest in consolidating federal power as the Democrats do, albeit for different reasons. Yet, they lie and act like they seek to shrink government (at least the Democrats do not lie about their affection for big government). You and many others have taken their "gifts" and shut up (as the White House desired). Some of the rest of us have not and will not.

If you think you aren?t
angry, your posts betray you, instead of coming off well spoken you often look like
a hothead.

Oh, I used to get very, very angry. But I simply do not anymore. It serves no purpose. That does not mean that I have compromised my desires, because I have not. Nor have I diminished in my distinction between a good, decent, honest, upright, moral, ethical person and a lying, scheming, Machiavellian user and the necessity that we quit awarding power to the latter, irrespective of political affiliation, if we wish to preserve our civilization. But I no longer get angry about it. I may still throw around terms here and there which "sound" angry but that is really more to satisfy a few posters around here who WANT me to sound angry (hehehe). (Obviously, it is a shame that we cannot see people here face-to-face.) But I see the world differently than I did even six months ago and I have found inner peace. So, no, I do not get angry. But I am still not going to defend this administration or any other as it infringes upon the rights of others without consent.

On 2002-07-13 19:05, Eric A Meece wrote:
justmom was a strange experience. She posted mostly cliches, then wondered why some people didn't take her for real. She is happy with her personal life, which is great. I admire her for that. For those who are also interested in what's happening in the world, and who take a genuine interest in it, there are issues on which people take stands or which require more thought than she cares to devote to the subject.

I am amazed at her stereotype of me. I admire the Summer of Love for what it was. However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking. She obviously does not care to try to understand what people say on forums like this. It is OK to label and stereotype people as long as you don't put it in the way of what they are trying to say.

I've noticed that justmom complains about the partisanship here and yet she contributes to it herself. Maybe we need more millennials in here. Who act like millennials. I don't really appreciate it when others (i.e. stonewall) shove their views into my face. Justmom did this too, it just didn't bother me as much because we are politically similar. I just don't express my views as vocally, and only bring them up when people make political arguments stupidly (i.e. simply insulting republicans, such as "George Dumbya Shrub" instead of making real arguments about the issues themselves, and then doing it rationally. Can't we move towards that (as well as seeking common ground) instead of this sharp partisanship in here?

On 2002-07-13 19:00, Eric A Meece wrote:
William Strauss started the site back in 1997, with Neil Howe. Strauss made a LOT of posts for the first several years. Most of those were on the old program. Like most people with better things to do, he hasn't stayed around forever posting to the web site.

Bill Strauss still posts from time to time, I wish sometime in the future say early next year, he give his and Neil's opinion on how events have shaped out since 911.

On 2002-07-13 19:05, Eric A Meece wrote:
justmom was a strange experience. She posted mostly cliches, then wondered why some people didn't take her for real. She is happy with her personal life, which is great. I admire her for that. For those who are also interested in what's happening in the world, and who take a genuine interest in it, there are issues on which people take stands or which require more thought than she cares to devote to the subject.

I am amazed at her stereotype of me. I admire the Summer of Love for what it was. However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking. She obviously does not care to try to understand what people say on forums like this. It is OK to label and stereotype people as long as you don't put it in the way of what they are trying to say.

However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking.

On 2002-07-14 07:30, Shrek wrote:

On 2002-07-13 19:05, Eric A Meece wrote:
justmom was a strange experience. She posted mostly cliches, then wondered why some people didn't take her for real. She is happy with her personal life, which is great. I admire her for that. For those who are also interested in what's happening in the world, and who take a genuine interest in it, there are issues on which people take stands or which require more thought than she cares to devote to the subject.

I am amazed at her stereotype of me. I admire the Summer of Love for what it was. However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking. She obviously does not care to try to understand what people say on forums like this. It is OK to label and stereotype people as long as you don't put it in the way of what they are trying to say.

However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking.

Funny...I always thought that continuous fucking and weed smoking WAS what the Summer of Love was all about!

I think we're all giving Justmom a hard time. Sure she blew in like a hurricane, but I think some people here (myself included) didn't give her a chance. It seems that there is a little exclusivity on this board, an unwritten convention that new posters must lay low for a while until they've proven themselves wrthy of stating strong opinions.

While I may not agree with Justmom's views about many things political, really her stating them is no different than a few other outspoken posters here--and yet no one gives *them* a hard time.

Let's give her a chance. There's room for all different types of people here.
That's what makes this board so great.

I have to say that whatever else I think about Justmom's posts, she makes some interestings points. I have thought for quite some time that it would be more valuable to focus more on finding common ground than trying to be right. This trait is common on this forum and I recognise it easily because it is a trait that I also posssess and try to supress.

I also when I first foung this forum thought that I had found something new and different. I was elated to think that there were real people thinking real thoughts seeking real solutions to real problems. It was also intertaining on an intellectual level that I found refreshing. As time passed I increasingly became bothered by trivial adolecent and mean-spirited postings.

Upon further reflection, I realized that these merely represented the normal ravings of real people displaying valid emotions and feelings. So what? I can live with that. I still think that Justmom has some valid concerns. However, I also believe that she is a bit premature in her judgement of us and would be well advised to go back and begin reading the older posts to get a truer feeling for what is actually going on here.

I discovered this forum a few days after 911 when I began to think again about the book which I had read several years before and which had impressed me so much. This tread had been created on 9/13. Already it was pages long, so I went back to the begining and read until I had caught up. Then I began catching up on many other threads which interested me. I'm sure that many other lurkers have used the same technique to familiarize themselves with the people, ideas and behavioral habits of the forum. By the time of my first post several months later I felt that I knew many of the people here already. IMO it helps to become famiiar with the situation before shooting your mouth off. Easier said than done I know.

I am as opionated and stubborn as anyone here. I don't post more for a couple of reasons: 1.)Generally anything that I want to say is usually said first. 2.) I don't want to fan the fires of controversy more that they need to be fanned. But I believe that us lurkers have a responsibility to weigh in occasionally and to supply much needed feed-back.

The times we are living in right now are tense and very interesting. What happens now will affect our society way into the future. Stay with us Justmom. We need you and many more.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/LV123705.DTL

Uhh...did a couple thousand posts to this topic just disappear?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2002-07-14 14:32 ]</font>

And how comes every time I edit a post (like I just did), I get this:


An Error Occured
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could not connect to the Posts database. SELECT p.*, pt.post_text FROM posts p, posts_text pt WHERE topic_id = '237' AND p.post_id = pt.post_id ORDER BY post_id LIMIT , 25

On 2002-07-14 12:12, buzzard44 wrote:
I have to say that whatever else I think about Justmom's posts, she makes some interestings points. I have thought for quite some time that it would be more valuable to focus more on finding common ground than trying to be right. This trait is common on this forum and I recognise it easily because it is a trait that I also posssess and try to supress.

I also when I first foung this forum thought that I had found something new and different. I was elated to think that there were real people thinking real thoughts seeking real solutions to real problems. It was also intertaining on an intellectual level that I found refreshing. As time passed I increasingly became bothered by trivial adolecent and mean-spirited postings.

Upon further reflection, I realized that these merely represented the normal ravings of real people displaying valid emotions and feelings. So what? I can live with that. I still think that Justmom has some valid concerns. However, I also believe that she is a bit premature in her judgement of us and would be well advised to go back and begin reading the older posts to get a truer feeling for what is actually going on here.

I discovered this forum a few days after 911 when I began to think again about the book which I had read several years before and which had impressed me so much. This tread had been created on 9/13. Already it was pages long, so I went back to the begining and read until I had caught up. Then I began catching up on many other threads which interested me. I'm sure that many other lurkers have used the same technique to familiarize themselves with the people, ideas and behavioral habits of the forum. By the time of my first post several months later I felt that I knew many of the people here already. IMO it helps to become famiiar with the situation before shooting your mouth off. Easier said than done I know.

I am as opionated and stubborn as anyone here. I don't post more for a couple of reasons: 1.)Generally anything that I want to say is usually said first. 2.) I don't want to fan the fires of controversy more that they need to be fanned. But I believe that us lurkers have a responsibility to weigh in occasionally and to supply much needed feed-back.

The times we are living in right now are tense and very interesting. What happens now will affect our society way into the future. Stay with us Justmom. We need you and many more.

Actually this makes a lot of sense... we need as much diversity in opinions as possible here!

On 2002-07-13 23:16, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-07-13 19:05, Eric A Meece wrote:
justmom was a strange experience. She posted mostly cliches, then wondered why some people didn't take her for real. She is happy with her personal life, which is great. I admire her for that. For those who are also interested in what's happening in the world, and who take a genuine interest in it, there are issues on which people take stands or which require more thought than she cares to devote to the subject.

I am amazed at her stereotype of me. I admire the Summer of Love for what it was. However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking. She obviously does not care to try to understand what people say on forums like this. It is OK to label and stereotype people as long as you don't put it in the way of what they are trying to say.

I've noticed that justmom complains about the partisanship here and yet she contributes to it herself. Maybe we need more millennials in here. Who act like millennials. I don't really appreciate it when others (i.e. stonewall) shove their views into my face. Justmom did this too, it just didn't bother me as much because we are politically similar. I just don't express my views as vocally, and only bring them up when people make political arguments stupidly (i.e. simply insulting republicans, such as "George Dumbya Shrub" instead of making real arguments about the issues themselves, and then doing it rationally. Can't we move towards that (as well as seeking common ground) instead of this sharp partisanship in here?

Don't worry, there will be more Millies here over time - up till about half a year ago or so, the youngest poster was Craig '84 and he didn't act like a Millie AT ALL! When more of the 86-92 crowd becomes old enough to post and be interested in this, you'll get your crowd of Millies... and anyway I try to seek common ground as often as possible (even if I like to make cheezy jokes :smile

On 2002-07-14 16:03, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-13 23:16, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-07-13 19:05, Eric A Meece wrote:
justmom was a strange experience. She posted mostly cliches, then wondered why some people didn't take her for real. She is happy with her personal life, which is great. I admire her for that. For those who are also interested in what's happening in the world, and who take a genuine interest in it, there are issues on which people take stands or which require more thought than she cares to devote to the subject.

I am amazed at her stereotype of me. I admire the Summer of Love for what it was. However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking. She obviously does not care to try to understand what people say on forums like this. It is OK to label and stereotype people as long as you don't put it in the way of what they are trying to say.

I've noticed that justmom complains about the partisanship here and yet she contributes to it herself. Maybe we need more millennials in here. Who act like millennials. I don't really appreciate it when others (i.e. stonewall) shove their views into my face. Justmom did this too, it just didn't bother me as much because we are politically similar. I just don't express my views as vocally, and only bring them up when people make political arguments stupidly (i.e. simply insulting republicans, such as "George Dumbya Shrub" instead of making real arguments about the issues themselves, and then doing it rationally. Can't we move towards that (as well as seeking common ground) instead of this sharp partisanship in here?

Don't worry, there will be more Millies here over time - up till about half a year ago or so, the youngest poster was Craig '84 and he didn't act like a Millie AT ALL! When more of the 86-92 crowd becomes old enough to post and be interested in this, you'll get your crowd of Millies... and anyway I try to seek common ground as often as possible (even if I like to make cheezy jokes :smile

I think I'm the youngest in here right now.. '87.

You're two years younger than my daughter, Alex.

Anyone want to join the secret police?

Only in a 4T could this ever happen.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...185141232.html

Robert:

I'd say the whole article is worth posting. Oh, nothing to see here, folks...drink your Kool-Aid and move along.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...185141232.html

(For education and discussion purposes only)


US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies

By Ritt Goldstein
July 15 2002


The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States citizens as domestic informants in a

program likely to alarm civil liberties groups.

The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report "suspicious activity".

Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage earlier this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive, large-scale investigations of US citizens.

As with the Patriot Act, TIPS is being pursued as part of the so-called war against terrorism. It is a Department of Justice project.

Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers are being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides access to homes, businesses or transport systems. Letter carriers, utility employees, truck drivers and train conductors are among those named as targeted recruits.

A pilot program, described on the government Web site http://www.citizencorps.gov, is scheduled to start
next month in 10 cities, with 1 million informants participating in the first stage. Assuming the program is initiated in the 10 largest US cities, that will be 1 million informants for a total population of almost 24 million, or one in 24 people.

Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic states. According to a 1992 report by Harvard University's Project on Justice, the accuracy of informant reports is problematic, with some informants having embellished the truth, and others suspected of having fabricated their reports.

Present Justice Department procedures mean that informant reports will enter databases for future reference and/or action. The information will then be broadly available within the department, related agencies and local police forces. The targeted individual will remain unaware of the existence of the report and of its contents.

The Patriot Act already provides for a person's home to be searched without that person being informed that a search was ever performed, or of any surveillance devices that were implanted.

At state and local levels the TIPS program will be co-ordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which

was given sweeping new powers, including internment, as part of the Reagan Administration's national security initiatives. Many key figures of the Reagan era are part of the Bush Administration.

The creation of a US "shadow government", operating in secret, was another Reagan national security initiative.

Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in the movement for US law enforcement accountability. He has lived in Sweden since 1997, seeking political asylum there, saying he was the victim of life-threatening assaults in retaliation for his accountability efforts. His application has been supported by the European Parliament, five of Sweden's seven big political parties, clergy, and Amnesty and other rights groups.

On 2002-07-13 17:08, justmom wrote:
A little background maybe. I am 34 born in 1968 to a man who was 35, born
in 1932, to a man who was
50, born in 1885. Since you understand generations maybe you see what an anomaly
this is. I grew up extremely protected from the culture of 1968 ie: Vietnam, the hippies
etc. But, alternately I was barefoot and ran free most of the day in the hills.
( all the while living in So. Ca. ) I grew into my teens as a typical X?r
alienated, a punk, used drugs, blah blah. On my own at 18. But, really on my
own, I never had a roommate to take advantage of. By 24 I had 2 children, the
first I adopted out and the 2nd I kept. I was also widowed at 24. By a
abusive binge drug addict, user of , crack, cocaine, heroine, alcohol, and
Valum. I still drink wine, on occasions, about 1 bottle a month. Just in case you
think I?ve swung 180 and now refuse all forms of ?intoxicants? as a knee jerk
reaction. A year and ? later I was remarried to the most gracious loving and
wonderful man alive. With a totally rad job to boot, he?s a sea captain , whose
home every night.. We now have a total of 3 kids, and I love my life.
We just celebrated our 8 year anniversary.

When I was younger I was a bleeding heart liberal. I was also depressed and
alienated. I wasn?t ever really happy with me, or the way things were.
Now, I am very happy, and content and I like myself, I love my kids, my husband
and I have a great marriage that is envied by some. So if you ask me to
?Consider the Liberal point of view? been there, done that, I don?t like living
that way. I prefer being Happy. :grin:

Justmom, if you are still lurking -- I found your post to be a fascinating insight as to why some many people have such a revulsion to liberalism -- its because they associate it with people or a past which is druggy or otherwise representative of the worst of the Awakening.

For me, liberals are what many of the most moral, even fuddy-duddy people are. My 92-year-old godmother, widow of a Methodist minister, who spent years active in civil rights and then the peace movement. My fair-minded father, who represented the best of the Silents and whose wildest activity during the Awakening was learning how to cook and was happily married to my mom until his death in 1986. My younger sister, who is a firmly committed mother and a fairly strict parent (no TV on school nights, etc...). My mother, who is scrupulously honest and volunteers in the local food pantry. All people who believe in a strong role for the federal government in regulating business, protecting the environment, and helping American families, but support tolerance of gays, etc...

So if you associate liberalism with your drunken orgies from your wild and wooly youth, you will hate it (and also hate Clinton). However, if your liberal role models are ... well, appropriate role models, even if you disagree on the issues, your disagreements will certainly be less vehement.

I understand. I have a gut (and unfair) reaction to the Unitarian/Universalist movement because as a teen, I belonged to a youth group, was initiated into pot use at a function, and saw several of my friends lose their virginity at several other functions. This was back in 1971-1972, but something in me shudders when people say they are Unitarians, even though my religious philosophy is probably quite close to theirs. Sorry, Angeli! :smile:

_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-14 19:49 ]</font>

Robert Reed III; could you please use BB code to post your links? It is nicer when I can read the posts of a page upon which a very long URL is posted! Thanks!

#1 Liberal
#2 Radical
#3 Third Way
#4 Left-libertarian
#5 Centrist
#6 Neoconservative
#7 Libertarian
#8 Paleoconservative
#9 Paleo-libertarian
#10 Conservative

Thanks Stonewall for posting my answers to the select smart site. Those were my results. Looks good, if hardly surprising :wink:

However nowhere on this site did I advocate continuous fucking or grass smoking.

Funny...I always thought that continuous fucking and weed smoking WAS what the Summer of Love was all about!

#1 My posts have to do with lots more than the Summer of Love. Why does someone like justmom resort to such simplified statements?

#2 Posts I have made to other sites are not relevant, at least not unless she or someone wants to post them here and discuss them-- which she didn't.

#3 I make no posts anywhere that advocate continuous fucking and/or grass smoking (although I am for legalization).

#4 The above shows how much the media over-simplification of the counterculture gets in peoples' minds and distorts events. The Summer of Love and similar events did have a lot of grass smoking (among other mind-altering substances used) and lots of love-making; it also had love as well as sex; music, arts in the streets, light shows, creativity, spirituality, interest in magick/occultism/paganism, barter economies, doing things you love to do, political statements, communal experiments, tolerance of different people, interest in human potential development, back to nature movements, sloppiness and haphardness, over-inflated and naive idealism, free-love experiments that contributed to family breakdowns; etc. etc. It was a rich and culture-altering experience that we went through and is now part of our heritage, and enriches and inspires us with creative possibilities and lessons to learn, if we choose to look upon it as such.

I did not read very many if any posts in which justmom made coherent intelligent comments. Perhaps there were some that I missed. I certainly don't object to her posting here. She said she is gone though so she probably won't read any of these comments. If you send them to her email, apparently her loving husband screens them and replies to them with insults.

I realized that these merely represented the normal ravings of real
people displaying valid emotions and feelings. So what? I can live with that. I still think that Justmom has some valid concerns. However, I also believe that she is a bit premature in her judgement of us and would be well advised to go back and begin reading the older posts to get a truer feeling for what is actually going on here.

I agree :smile:

I like having fewer pages. I don't think anything was deleted. I hope not. It should make it easier to find things. This site is VERY slow, as are many these days. Anything done to ease navigation in this day of sites with too many ads and graphics would be great.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-14 19:48 ]</font>