On 2002-07-22 14:30, Marc Lamb wrote:


I not at all sure why folks bother to post anything about generations at this website. It's all worthless garbage. What really counts is whether the liberals are in charge or not. If their not, the world's going to hell very fast. If they are...


<FONT SIZE="+3"><center>We're saved!</FONT></center>




Screw this generations stuff. :smile:

<FONT SIZE="+4"><center>Oh My God!!</FONT></center>

Ugh! Just get back on topic! The country is not going to hell if the Democrats are in charge. It is not going to hell if the Republicans are in charge. Calm down. And get back on topic. Please.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlexMnWi on 2002-07-22 14:35 ]</font>

Hey, Al, who appointed you arbiter of speech content in this thread? :smile:


p.s. It's all "evidence," Al, to the fact the world is going to hell... fast (now that the evil Republicans are in charge). Do I need to draw a picture for ya, pal?

AlexMnWi:"Calm down. And get back on topic. Please."
_____________________

posy: Alex, the medium is the message. It's not the content that is important, it is the process.
In terms of generations, I think we are in a transitional phase between 3T/4T. You are seeing all this bickering because "liberals" are talking back to the right wingnuts and it is making them crazier than they generally are. What is significant is not who is in the whitehouse, but that the squabbling is still going on. (And if I am any measure, getting worse. For years...1975 to 1994...I was down on the liberals in the Dem party because I thought they were suicidal ideologues who were dragging my party down to oblivion. But the 8 years of the Clinton witch hunts, not to mention the election of some seriously scary right wingers to congress, taught me the error of my ways. Every day that passes I get lefter and lefter.)
Apparently 911 was not enough to bring on the severe crisis atmosphere that is needed to make people drop their narcissism, perfectionism and extremism. And I don't think that this market crash is either. I have a hard time believing that it is anything more than a painful (VERY) correction. Except for debt, the fundamentals are good. I am worried about what happens when we invade Iraq, in terms of disruptions of the oil supply. But I still believe that we do need to eliminate Hussein.
I don't know what it will take to bring on a serious mood change. I thought I saw it in America for a few weeks after 911. But there was no way for Americans to begin to work together in response. All we were told to do was spend money. So the only communitarianism you saw was in the flags that people placed on their cars and homes.
I did read your "bizarre attempt" to get us back on the topic. This might be 1930 I suppose. When was Father Coughlin (what was his name?? the right wing priest who rose up in the 30's) popular? I know that the left wing was very active then, didn't the KKK become very active again under the stress of the depression. I can't remember that era (29-32) very well.
I'd like to throw in another idea. Just bit of paranoia to keep things interesting. I believe that certain Saudi/and Other Oil interests are behind the 911 attacks because they want to control "their oil". Remember how they aimed their first planes at wall street? Do you suppose this might be more than a correction? Like maybe some very big interests moving against ours in the markets? Or maybe computer sabotage? Just an idea for the dopamine challenged.

On 2002-07-22 17:05, posy wrote:
I know that the left wing was very active then, didn't the KKK become very active again under the stress of the depression.

The boom in the KKK here in Minnesota was a 1920's project...fear of Catholics, Jews, etc. Minneapolis was a hot bed of the KKK. By the 1930's the Trotskyites and the CPUSA were where the action was. HTH

On 2002-07-22 14:46, Marc Lamb wrote:


Hey, Al, who appointed you arbiter of speech content in this thread? :smile:


p.s. It's all "evidence," Al, to the fact the world is going to hell... fast (now that the evil Republicans are in charge). Do I need to draw a picture for ya, pal?

Hey, if the world is going to hell, it is because we are going into a 4T and boomers are in charge. Not because Republicans are in charge. You have to understand the theory. And assuming that this bickering continues I think I'll just hope that the 1T isn't *too* far away.

Now, yet again trying to get back on topic, here is some evidence we are in a 4T.
NEWS HEADLINES
"Fear Batters Stocks Some More - Dow drops 234 to close below 8,000 for first time since '98"
"Israel strikes target in Gaza - Palestinian officials say 12 killed"
"Housing crisis worsens - Shortage because construction is behind population growth, and no relief is in sight"
"Report: Iran behind '94 bombing in Argentina - Testimony also says Iran paid Argentina's president $10 million to deny involvement"
And so forth.

It seemed that after 9/11 we were definitely in a 4T. Months later it seemed we were still in a 3T. Now, more and more, it seems that we are in a 4T.

On 2002-07-22 18:14, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-07-22 00:24, takascar2 wrote:

The President has asked that we all keep an eye out for "suspicious" activity and to report any that we see. I was just doing what I felt was right. If you want to criticize me for that, I'm willing to accept it.

Well accept the fact that you are an ass, then.

If the secret service wastes its time monitoring this site, and as a result misses out on monitoring REAL terrorists, and as a result we have another terrorist attack, I'm blaming YOU!

XoE

and if they shut down this webpage because of you, Takascar, then *I* am blaming *you* (not that it's as important as national security, but it would still really suck for the rest of us)

Don't forget to take your Prozac.
:smile:

_________________
We're all created from an act of love, so why is there so much hate?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-22 19:52 ]</font>

Xer confesses,
"I think I originally adopted this name to irritate Marc. :smile: But I have since grown to love the guy too, even when he is doing his "pompous ass" impression."

This unirritated irate "pompous ass" is :oops: (I still think I'm losing my touch)


Mr. Saari responds,
"The boom in the KKK here in Minnesota was a 1920's project...fear of Catholics, Jews, etc. Minneapolis was a hot bed of the KKK. By the 1930's the Trotskyites and the CPUSA were where the action was."

Folks, it doesn't get any funnier than this. :lol: Hope you didn't miss it.

Xer of Evil says: "You weren't around when we were talking about the "Axis of Evil" and trying to figure out what the hell Dubya was talking about. My guess was that maybe he knew the ages of the terrorists and was really saying "Xers of Evil."
___________________________

posy: Looks like you have figured out "Mr. Mumbles" speech patterns. But his thought patterns remain obscure... as in dim, dull, faint.

On 2002-07-22 09:05, Marc Lamb wrote:



"Never mind that the entire argument fails to hiold together with anything approaching enough coherency to permit rebuttal. But if you agree that treason = restriction of free speach = campaign spending restrictions = Osama bin Laden, you have no problem with any of this."

Response:
1. Thanks for reposting my brilliant argument. :smile:

2. The right to speak out against the government would surely be abridged were it not for the First Amendment. This would be consider treason.

3. Campaign Finance Reform restricts freedom of speech by making it illegal to speak out against imcumbent government officials within sixty days of an election.

4. As far as the jury awards go, you completely missed the point of my tyranny of one argument.

5. Which is not surprising, Dave. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-22 09:11 ]</font>

I thought it was a great arguement Marc. There are some readers out here whom understand what you say. It didn't go over MY head. he he

On 2002-07-22 14:35, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-07-22 14:30, Marc Lamb wrote:


I not at all sure why folks bother to post anything about generations at this website. It's all worthless garbage. What really counts is whether the liberals are in charge or not. If their not, the world's going to hell very fast. If they are...


<FONT SIZE="+3"><center>We're saved!</FONT></center>




Screw this generations stuff. :smile:

<FONT SIZE="+4"><center>Oh My God!!</FONT></center>

Ugh! Just get back on topic! The country is not going to hell if the Democrats are in charge. It is not going to hell if the Republicans are in charge. Calm down. And get back on topic. Please.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlexMnWi on 2002-07-22 14:35 ]</font>

Alex, you are so funny, Not.
Go do your self a favor, get a dictionary go look up the word "irony" it's not something you do to your clothes. Then, look up " sarcasm" then look up "obtuse". Is your picture there? But, hell, in the intrest of staying on topic. Here's a little something for all of us to discuss:

Rumsfeld: AC-130 Tape 'Clearly' Shows Ground Fire
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 22, 2002

The Pentagon (CNSNews.com) - An air strike that Afghan officials said killed more than 40 civilians in Oruzgan on July 1 was based on observations by U.S. troops on the ground, not false information from rival Afghan forces, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Monday.

"We had people on the ground with eyes on targets who saw anti-aircraft [weapons] and targeted them," Rumsfeld said. "It was not some rival warlords turning the United States on their rival warlord enemies."

Rumsfeld said he had reviewed 15 to 20 minutes of a four-hour videotape from the Air Force AC-130 gunship that attacked the villages.

"Clearly there was ground fire," the defense secretary said. But the formal U.S.-Afghan investigation now underway will provide answers, he said.

"It's an unfortunate fact of war that inevitably innocent civilians are killed," Rumsfeld said. "This has been true throughout the history of warfare and it remains true even in this age of advanced technology and precision-guided munitions."

The liberals will hate this type of "good news" they want our military to be "bad" and screw up.

I think their reaction to this is evidence we are still in a 3T.

P.S. Chritine is a "war slut" hahaahahaha

_____________________



I'd like to throw in another idea. Just bit of paranoia to keep things interesting. I believe that certain Saudi/and Other Oil interests are behind the 911 attacks because they want to control "their oil". Remember how they aimed their first planes at wall street? Do you suppose this might be more than a correction? Like maybe some very big interests moving against ours in the markets? Or maybe computer sabotage? Just an idea for the dopamine challenged.

[/quote]
Thanks to a period of my life where I junked out on paperback thrillers that I found in used bookstores, I've been toying with the idea that our stock market woes are being caused by evil terrorist masterminds, manipulating the markets with incredible precision at the exact moments of extreme vulnerability. These evil geniuses are so much more knowledgeable than anyone else that there is no defense against them! Woe to us!
Actually, I think that plain old greed and stupidity are sufficient explanations for our problems, although the evil mastermind theory is more fun.
In a more serious vein, I think that Mr. Takascar's(?) calling in the Secret Service on someone in this forum is detestable. The "reasons" he gives for doing this are utterly asinine. Perhaps he might wish to change his screen name to "Gollum".

Hi!

On 2002-07-23 06:58, jds1958xg wrote to AlexMnWi:

Here's another headline for your collection, from the Tuesday, July 23, 2002 edition of 'USA Today':

"Living-wage movement takes root across nation."

Perhaps a sign that 3T wage structures are becoming less and less acceptable to more and more people, as we move into 4T?

Good. Maybe people have decided that they really do have to live on their earnings not their <s>gambling winnings</s>stock investments. Nothing like impending hard times to focus the mind.

AAcckkKK! Living wage, my dogs Butt!

But, on another unrelated topic.
My Mother in law, bro in law, were over at ye ol homestead yesterday.
The topic came up about the 16 year old boy who appears to have been manhandled by the cops. I don't want to debate that part of the story. What I would like is comments on your beliefs, fellow 4T'rs, about the possibility of another "L.A. Riot".

If you recall, the Riot was uncontrolled at an intersection for several hours before it was full blown, and 3 full days before the National Gaurd was brought in. ( The excuse given was, they needed to distribute ammunition. Oh how safe I feel now, in the face of possible terrorism and dirty nukes)
Anyhow, any thinking person, KNOWS this was pure poppycock, The riot cops could have stopped the riot anytime they wanted to within the first hours, and the National Gaurd, could have been deployed immediately. But, I digress...

All but me, yesterday were certain that there could be another RIOT. I said No. What
do you people think?

It's been 10 years. That's about how long most electronics equipment lasts.

On 2002-07-23 12:13, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:


It's been 10 years. That's about how long most electronics equipment lasts.

Cynicism. I like that. :grin:

I've no idea whether or not there could be rioting as a result of this most recent incident. I'm fairly sure, however, that much, much more effort would be put forth to forestall such a repeat occurance by the current administration.


Things are not going well for Bush. His real source of political support is going to be in keeping the public eye focused outward on a successful ongoing war on terror (the perception, not necessarily the fact, of course). If civil disobedience erupts in the current environment, it can not but end badly. Those in power know that, and would likely be willing to sacrifice a few token peons at this point in the game.


Now, rioting in a couple more years? We'll see...

On 2002-07-22 15:07, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-07-22 00:24, takascar2 wrote:

Also, this is a time of war. We need to work together as one nation. Dissent is not a luxury that we can afford during a time of war.

If the Founding Fathers had followed your advice, we would still be bowing to Mother England right now.

Not only that, but think about how history would've been different if the German people dissented against Hitler.

On 2002-07-22 00:24, takascar2 wrote:

Also, this is a time of war. We need to work together as one nation. Dissent is not a luxury that we can afford during a time of war.

Solzhenytsin's $0.02, from The Gulag Arkhipelago:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur - what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If. . . if . . . We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! . . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." (Note 5, page 13, Vol. 1, The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn)

HTH

Robert, who would have been their dissenting leader? In a way, Hitler was a dissenter against the current regime.

On 2002-07-23 14:04, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:
Robert, who would have been their dissenting leader? In a way, Hitler was a dissenter against the current regime.

You Millies!

You don't need a leader to dissent. You just do it yourself. If you're not insane, other people will be doing it themselves, too.

On 2002-07-23 14:04, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:
Robert, who would have been their dissenting leader? In a way, Hitler was a dissenter against the current regime.

Good point.

I find it a bit odd that Justin '77 wrote:

Solzhenytsin's $0.02, from The Gulag Arkhipelago:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur - what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If. . . if . . . We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! . . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." (Note 5, page 13, Vol. 1, The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn)

... while claiming loyalty to the one politician able and apparently willing to bring the Gulag here - George "Walk in your own shoes" Bush.



Dumbfounding, to say the least.