Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 153







Post#3801 at 08-16-2002 04:54 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-16-2002, 04:54 PM #3801
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Then how do you plan on blaming Bush for the stock market slide which began an entire 372 days before he took office?








Post#3802 at 08-16-2002 05:18 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-16-2002, 05:18 PM #3802
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Then how do you plan on blaming Bush for the stock market slide which began an entire 372 days before he took office?

Say, these aren't bad!












Post#3803 at 08-16-2002 10:36 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
08-16-2002, 10:36 PM #3803
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Tell me, Stonewall, has every last bit of rationality left your mind, or have you always been this judgemental? First of all, those first two pictures don't even look in the least bit similar, and for the second one, Bush's poll numbers are not low, and your signature is even worse. So, let me sum up my feelings toward your last two posts:

:x :evil: :x :evil: :x :evil: :evil: :x :evil: :evil: :evil:
1987 INTP







Post#3804 at 08-16-2002 10:47 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
08-16-2002, 10:47 PM #3804
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

LOL

Stonewall, I LOVE those! Especally the rebus with the oil company logos!

You might also appreciate this:

http://www.bushorchimp.com/
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#3805 at 08-16-2002 10:57 PM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
08-16-2002, 10:57 PM #3805
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Re: LOL

Quote Originally Posted by Heliotrope
Stonewall, I LOVE those! Especally the rebus with the oil company logos!

You might also appreciate this:

http://www.bushorchimp.com/
I do think critics of Bush do not take him seriously as a politican or even as a intellegent as most people in society, he is not a brainiac.

However,

I do not take SAT scores and School grades to be a sign of intelligence, I did pretty average in High School and I have an IQ of 150. Anyway IQ?s are an incomplete measure of intelligence, you can be very intelligent in other ways despite having an IQ score which is pretty average.

Some people in Australia always underestimated John Howard they thought he was dull, boring and unable to be a good politican. However Howard has proven them wrong, I would suggest do not make such rash assumptions of GW Bush in the future.







Post#3806 at 08-16-2002 11:21 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-16-2002, 11:21 PM #3806
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Tell me, Stonewall, has every last bit of rationality left your mind, or have you always been this judgemental?
Judgmental is not the right term. I live and let live. And I do not fire unless fired upon. This administration drew first blood. Do you understand the difference?

Perhaps I better explain. This administration has unleashed a veritable artillery barrage on We The People in its efforts to destroy what little remains of our Constitution. Every time it so arrogantly usurps a power not its own, it violates yet another of our God-given rights.

My ancestors have lived here nearly 400 years, some possibly longer. They have fought and, in many cases, died in every major conflict this country has ever known. As an American, I have a duty to honor the glorious sacrifices made, at great personal cost, by my forefathers. But more importantly, as a human being, I have a duty to ensure that my posterity might live free. This country is nobody's protection racket. And so help me God, I will oppose the Machiavellian human garbage in this White House at every turn.

So, let me sum up my feelings toward your last two posts:

:x :evil: :x :evil: :x :evil: :evil: :x :evil: :evil: :evil:
Well, you better get used to it. Because, rest assured, we defenders of the Constitution, of the philosophy of the founding fathers, and of the God-given rights of the individual, are not about to go away. We will not be intimidated in any way so, if you want it to stop, then you are going to have to kill us. It is that simple. The ball is in your court.

Oh, and just so you know, I am a first wave Xer, a veteran of the US armed forces, and a Reagan man. This is not any sort of counter-culture speaking here. Again, the ball is in your court because this land belongs to us and, as God is our witness, we ain't moving.







Post#3807 at 08-16-2002 11:29 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-16-2002, 11:29 PM #3807
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Re: LOL

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I do think critics of Bush do not take him seriously as a politican or even as a intellegent as most people in society, he is not a brainiac.
It has nothing to do with his intelligence, Tristan. It is the unmistakable fact that he has no natural interest in the affairs of state, no discernable understanding of the Constitution or our system of government, and is therefore as blatant a puppet as can be. He is indisputably the front man for some power-hungry cretins' protection racket. And this country is nobody's protection racket.







Post#3808 at 08-17-2002 12:01 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
08-17-2002, 12:01 AM #3808
Guest

Last year's change to a new forum was one thing, and that was pretty bad, this year's is altogether different... stranger, more ridiculous and bizarre, like a circus come to town. Yes, like a circus that is more much more gaudy than last year's circus. Lot's more jazz and glitz, more buttons to push, more distractions, more options... and much less substance.

Yech, is about all I can say. Yech, yech, yech! If this is progress, I ain't gonna go, folks. Even the smilies are bizarre, and much too unfriendly.







Post#3809 at 08-17-2002 03:03 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
08-17-2002, 03:03 PM #3809
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Tell me, Stonewall, has every last bit of rationality left your mind, or have you always been this judgemental?
Judgmental is not the right term. I live and let live. And I do not fire unless fired upon. This administration drew first blood. Do you understand the difference?

And some people are always complaining about every little thing anyone does. I'm so sure that the FBI has tapped every phone in everyone's house, and that there are surveillance cameras on every corner. First of all, there are plenty of people over on your side of the fence who love to burn up the 2nd Amendment, and Liberals don't seem to mind, but once a Republican is in office, then its awful for anything even closely resembling a violation of the constitution is just awful! So, let me once again sum up my feelings to your recent posts:


HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE! (and so on)
1987 INTP







Post#3810 at 08-17-2002 03:21 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
08-17-2002, 03:21 PM #3810
Guest

Re: LOL


I do think critics of Bush do not take him seriously as a politican or even as a intellegent as most people in society, he is not a brainiac.

Some people in Australia always underestimated John Howard they thought he was dull, boring and unable to be a good politican. However Howard has proven them wrong, I would suggest do not make such rash assumptions of GW Bush in the future.
A lot of political leaders have been underestimated. It has been the case all through history.







Post#3811 at 08-17-2002 03:59 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-17-2002, 03:59 PM #3811
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

First of all, there are plenty of people over on your side of the fence who love to burn up the 2nd Amendment,
You do not appear to understand the first thing about "my side of the fence." Again, maybe you should go out and get some air. You will feel better.







Post#3812 at 08-17-2002 04:44 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-17-2002, 04:44 PM #3812
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Go Russia Go! We have seen all kinds of BS propagated by the White House of late to confuse the picture, including the alleged "opposition" of Brent Scowcroft. Come on! NOBODY is joined more closely at the hip to Daddy than Brent Scowcroft! But this Russian "defiance" is for real and true setback for the administration. Go Russia Go!


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...aq_9&printer=1

(For educ. and discussion)


Russia, Iraq May OK $40B Deal
Sat Aug 17, 3:10 PM ET

By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW (AP) - Iraq and Russia are close to signing a $40 billion economic cooperation plan, Iraq's ambassador said Saturday, a deal that could put Moscow at odds with the United States as it considers a military attack against Baghdad.

The statement by Ambassador Abbas Khalaf came amid indications that Russia, despite its strong support for the post-Sept. 11 antiterrorism coalition, is maintaining or improving ties with Iran and North Korea ( news - web sites), which together with Iraq are the countries President Bush ( news - web sites) has labeled the "axis of evil."

Washington is trying to rally support for a possible invasion of Iraq, which the United States accuses of supporting terrorism and of rebuilding its banned weapons of mass destruction program, but many U.S. allies are resisting the push.

German and U.S. officials confirmed Saturday that the U.S. ambassador to Berlin, Dan Coats, had questioned German officials about Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to attacking Iraq, an indication that Schroeder has irked Washington. Russia, a longtime ally of Iraq, has forcefully warned against a possible U.S. invasion.

Many opponents argue that an invasion cannot be justified without firm proof that the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) is developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The chief United Nations ( news - web sites) weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told The Associated Press that he can't say with certainty whether Iraq has such weapons. "If we knew ? if we had real evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction ? we would bring it to the Security Council," he said.

Blix spoke while waiting for Iraq's response to a letter from Secretary-General Kofi Annan ( news - web sites) urging the country to allow the return of weapons inspectors, who left in December 1998.

The pending Russia-Iraq economic deal is likely to be seen by Washington as another blow to its efforts to marshal backing for an attack. On Saturday, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said only "We're confident that Russia understands its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions and that they'll abide by them."

Sanctions imposed by the Security Council after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons have been destroyed along with the long-range missiles to deliver them.

Moscow has supported lifting the U.N. sanctions, hoping that would allow Baghdad to start paying off its $7 billion Soviet- era debt and help expand trade. The Russian Foreign Ministry said Saturday it had no comment on reports of an imminent economic cooperation agreement.

The agreement, which envisions new cooperation in the fields of oil, irrigation, agriculture, transportation, railroads and electrical energy, will most likely be signed in Baghdad in the beginning of September, Khalaf told The Associated Press.

Khalaf emphasized that the new cooperation deal, which is to include new projects as well as the modernization of some Soviet-built infrastructure, would not violate the sanctions.

In the current standoff with the United States, Iraq is counting on Russia to use its leverage in the U.N. Security Council and other diplomatic channels to deprive Washington of international support for a military operation, Khalaf said.

"First of all we need moral, political and diplomatic support. Because Iraq knows how to defend itself," he said. "The main thing for us is that American aggression does not go through the U.N. Security Council and that America does not receive a U.N. mandate. ... Let America act (alone) as an aggressor. It will be condemned from all sides."

Khalaf said he saw no contradiction between Russia's friendship with Iraq and its ties with Washington, which have strengthened since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We see friendship among various countries and civilized peoples of the world as a positive step. Any enmity brings harm to a country," he said.

Under Putin, Russian foreign policy has sought to create a network of alliances to counterbalance alleged U.S. domination of international affairs. Although Putin has moved Russia closer to West ? including increasing contacts with NATO ( news - web sites) and not raising objections to U.S. forces in Georgia and in former Soviet Central Asia ? he also has pursued relations with countries that are anathema to the United States.

Last month, Russia announced a 10-year plan for nuclear cooperation with Iran. Under the plan, Russia would build five reactors in addition to the one currently under construction at Bushehr, Iran. Washington fears such cooperation could help Iran develop nuclear weapons.

This week, the Kremlin announced that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il will visit Russia later in August for the second summer in a row.







Post#3813 at 08-17-2002 05:19 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
08-17-2002, 05:19 PM #3813
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

First of all, there are plenty of people over on your side of the fence who love to burn up the 2nd Amendment,
You do not appear to understand the first thing about "my side of the fence." Again, maybe you should go out and get some air. You will feel better.
You don't even seem to understand the first thing about how the white house stands on actual issues, either! Or, if you do, like a typical Boomer, you stretch things completely out of proportion. For example, having people call in suspicious activity becomes "Taking away our rights" according to Boomers?

Actually, I would rather things like that not happen, so the terrorists can plan for attacks unwatched again. Because terrorism is really preferable to a lack of privacy.

And just because Bush's speeches aren't the most professional speeches, he suddenly becomes "stupid"?! Most people aren't even as smart as he is. And I thought Boomers were supposed to reduce professionalism during the 3T.

Now, in Middle school, I had mostly C's and ranked in the 50th Percentile. Was I stupid? NO! Now in HS I have a 4.0 GPA. So you can't call someone stupid based on things like that.

EVERYONE: BRING BACK RATIONALITY!
1987 INTP







Post#3814 at 08-17-2002 05:49 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-17-2002, 05:49 PM #3814
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Or, if you do, like a typical Boomer

I'm not a Boomer. If you have a problem with Boomers, take out your frustrations on one. I cannot help you there.







Post#3815 at 08-17-2002 09:22 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
08-17-2002, 09:22 PM #3815
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Alex:
First of all, there are plenty of people over on your side of the fence who love to burn up the 2nd Amendment, and Liberals don't seem to mind, but once a Republican is in office, then its awful for anything even closely resembling a violation of the constitution is just awful!
As Stonewall has, with conspicuous lack of success, tried to batter through your preconceptions, you are pigeonholing him. He is not a leftie. He's a Reagan Republican and/or libertarian, and his criticism of the Bush League is coming from a libertarian perspective. Also, as he says, he's not a Boomer but an Xer.

However, since I am a leftist Boomer, I'll take your critique in hand and respond to it. It should have been directed at me, or someone like me, in the first place.

The Second Amendment is a passage of the Constitution understood by virtually nobody. Quite evidently, you are not numbered among those virtual nobodies. (Nor are most people who disagree with you about gun control.) (Or those who agree with you.)

What's the 2A all about? To understand this, I suggest reading material on the debate over the Constitution. Both the Federalist papers by Hamilton and Madison, and some of the anti-federalist writings, can put this issue in perspective. Clue: the 2A has absolutely nothing, zip, nada, to do with hunting, target shooting, or the possession of firearms for the purpose of protecting one's home against criminals. Its purpose is entirely military. But the National Guard doesn't meet that purpose, either, contrary to what some on the left seem to believe.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to obviate any need for a large, powerful standing army, and to provide for the existence of state forces to oppose, at need, any tyrannical aspirations by a national professional army. Hence the clause that reads: "A well-regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free people . . ."

The militia were to consist of all able-bodied adult males of military age. They were to receive basic military training, and be armed (at need) by Congress. They were to be under the control of the states, which could summon them to duty in case of invasion, insurrection, or other need. They could also be federalized to meet a large national need. Although Congress is authorized to arm the militia in Article I Section 8, the Second Amendment ensures, or at least was meant to ensure, that it would have weapons should Congress prove derelict in this obligation -- as it well might if it proposed to override the sovereignty of the states.

The militia was called out on a number of occasions during the first saeculum of U.S. history, with mixed results. It served adequately to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, but was routed by a numerically far inferior British force in the War of 1812. It was also called upon once to fulfill its function of opposing aggression by the federal government: the Confederacy did this in the Civil War. I trust the outcome of that action needs no great elaboration. As a direct result of it, the idea of a well-regulated militia has been abandoned. So, as a practical matter, has the Second Amendment, even though it remains on the books. Theodore Roosevelt created the National Guard and claimed that this met the requirement of the militia as mandated in the 2A, but it does not. There is no militia now, and there is a massive, overwhelmingly powerful standing army -- exactly what the framers of the Second Amendment meant to prevent.

In short, the Second Amendment has failed of its purpose, and today has no more legal meaning than the clause of Article I Section 9 forbidding Congress to interfere in the slave trade until 1808. No gun control legislation has ever been invalidated by any court on Second Amendment grounds, although some statutes have been voided on separation of powers grounds.

To claim that proponents of gun control violate the Second Amendment is to demonstrate one's own lack of understanding of it. Which is not to say that gun control proponents understand the 2A either, but at least they can read the words "well-regulated militia" and, if they are fuzzy about exactly what that means, at least have a clue that it is military, and don't ignore the clause because it's inconvenient.

But yes, violation of the Constitution is not to be allowed, particularly when it takes the heinous form of treading on those portions of the Bill of Rights that are still relevant and practically in force, or the denial at will of the rights of citizenship to U.S. citizens by classifying them as "enemy combatants."

As for your suggestion that civil liberties need to be sacrificed for the sake of security against terrorism, I challenge that assertion, and especially rebuke the idea of making this an open-ended affair. Moreover, some of Mr. Bush's specific suggestions step WAY over the line, while providing little or no actual security. And finally, if we must compromise some measure of freedom in order to protect ourselves, then let US decide what that compromise shall consist of -- not turn it over to Mr. Bush, who is absolutely not to be trusted.[/b]







Post#3816 at 08-17-2002 09:36 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
08-17-2002, 09:36 PM #3816
Guest

As Stonewall has, with conspicuous lack of success, tried to batter through your preconceptions, you are pigeonholing him. He is not a leftie. He's a Reagan Republican and/or libertarian, and his criticism of the Bush League is coming from a libertarian perspective. Also, as he says, he's not a Boomer but an Xer.

However, since I am a leftist Boomer, I'll take your critique in hand and respond to it. It should have been directed at me, or someone like me, in the first place.
Looks like a match made in heaven to me: A "leftist Boomer" and a "Reagan Republican and/or libertarian" Xer... It's a beautiful thing!







Post#3817 at 08-17-2002 09:53 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
08-17-2002, 09:53 PM #3817
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Alex:
First of all, there are plenty of people over on your side of the fence who love to burn up the 2nd Amendment, and Liberals don't seem to mind, but once a Republican is in office, then its awful for anything even closely resembling a violation of the constitution is just awful!
As Stonewall has, with conspicuous lack of success, tried to batter through your preconceptions, you are pigeonholing him. He is not a leftie. He's a Reagan Republican and/or libertarian, and his criticism of the Bush League is coming from a libertarian perspective. Also, as he says, he's not a Boomer but an Xer.
Stonewall is a libertarian Xer. Not only that, he was born after, ,not before, 1965 so no matter whether you buy S&H's Boom/Xer boundary, or the popular media's, he still an Xer. I don't want to give away what year he was born because Stonewall values his privacy even more than most, but rest assured, Boomish though he may come off at times, he REALLY IS an Xer.

That's why you can't always believe the stereotypes. All four generation types contain examples of all four archetypes--with one being more dominant than the rest.
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#3818 at 08-17-2002 10:26 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
08-17-2002, 10:26 PM #3818
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

A "leftist Boomer" and a "Reagan Republican and/or libertarian" Xer... It's a beautiful thing!
All it takes is a common enemy, Marc!

The words "liberal" and "libertarian" share the first two syllables, "liber," meaning "free." The difference between them is that libertarians -- being essentially 18th century liberals -- retain the belief that the government is the sole enemy of freedom, a belief modern liberals have felt compelled to modify.

This means that on those occasions when the government actually IS an enemy of freedom, we find common cause.







Post#3819 at 08-17-2002 11:20 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
08-17-2002, 11:20 PM #3819
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
All it takes is a common enemy, Marc!

The words "liberal" and "libertarian" share the first two syllables, "liber," meaning "free." The difference between them is that libertarians -- being essentially 18th century liberals -- retain the belief that the government is the sole enemy of freedom, a belief modern liberals have felt compelled to modify.

This means that on those occasions when the government actually IS an enemy of freedom, we find common cause.
It's oxymoronic, is it not, that one who believes that the federal government shall provide the means, by force if necessary, of egalitarian utopia would somehow find common cause with one who believes no such utopia exists? That in seeking to achieve the leftist's utopia, history has time and again revealed to said "libertarian" the sheer lunacy and destructive results of such dream? Odd bedfellows cannot begin to describe such an adulterous arrangement; only a rampant emotional and irrational fear can account for such.

The conspiracy kook jumps to the left side of the ship for fear of the monster he now claims to be lurking on the right... Funny, the lefty Boomer has always known this to be the case, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EVIL REAGAN WAS RUNNING THE SHOW. But now the paleoconservative, the anit-imperialist, the libertarian "get's it" and finds solace and comfort in the arms of the "leftist Boomer".

This is too funny. Until, I guess, old Saint Hillary is running the show... then the kooks'll be whining their way back over here, again.







Post#3820 at 08-18-2002 12:15 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
08-18-2002, 12:15 AM #3820
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Marc:

It's oxymoronic, is it not, that one who believes that the federal government shall provide the means, by force if necessary, of egalitarian utopia would somehow find common cause with one who believes no such utopia exists?
Sure; but that does not describe liberals. "Egalitarian utopia" is a wild exaggeration, a caricature, of liberal goals. Once again, you are confusing liberals and Marxists. They equate only in the diseased reaches of your fevered brain.

To the point, your caricature does not describe MY beliefs -- and therefore no such person is finding common cause with any libertarians, and thus there is no oxymoron.

Funny, the lefty Boomer has always known this to be the case, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EVIL REAGAN WAS RUNNING THE SHOW.
Yes. But the Reagan that Stonewall admires is not the real Reagan, any more than the Jesus worshiped by Christians is likely the historical Jesus. Stonewall seems to believe that Reagan was a libertarian. Myself, I cannot reconcile that idea with the fact that Reagan intensified the war on drugs, expanded the planned, military sector of the economy, used the federal budget deficit as a sneaky way to redistribute wealth into the hands of the rich, got us into all kinds of questionable military ventures abroad, and raised taxes on all but the richest Americans.

But never mind. I understand what Stonewall means when he describes himself as a "Reagan Republican," and since Reagan is no longer compos mentis, the inaccuracy of the term is not important.







Post#3821 at 08-18-2002 02:23 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-18-2002, 02:23 AM #3821
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Stonewall is a libertarian Xer...but rest assured, Boomish though he may come off at times, he REALLY IS an Xer.

That's why you can't always believe the stereotypes. All four generation types contain examples of all four archetypes--with one being more dominant than the rest.

Thanks, Susan. Alex may have honestly believed that I had been born in the '40s or '50s. But regardless, I wanted to address the point about idealism since it keeps coming up. However the argument got so complex (and off-topic) that I will have to post it on a temperament thread if I ever finish it. :wink:







Post#3822 at 08-18-2002 05:07 AM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
08-18-2002, 05:07 AM #3822
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Marc:

Yes. But the Reagan that Stonewall admires is not the real Reagan, any more than the Jesus worshiped by Christians is likely the historical Jesus. Stonewall seems to believe that Reagan was a libertarian. Myself, I cannot reconcile that idea with the fact that Reagan intensified the war on drugs, expanded the planned, military sector of the economy, used the federal budget deficit as a sneaky way to redistribute wealth into the hands of the rich, got us into all kinds of questionable military ventures abroad, and raised taxes on all but the richest Americans.
Hey that description of Ronald Reagan you have said describes my prefect president, absolutely committed to the cause of free market capitalism and time honored Western values

True I consider myself in the mould of Alexander Hamilton instead of Thomas Jefferson.







Post#3823 at 08-18-2002 05:29 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-18-2002, 05:29 AM #3823
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The conspiracy kook jumps to the left side of the ship for fear of the monster he now claims to be lurking on the right... Funny, the lefty Boomer has always known this to be the case, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EVIL REAGAN WAS RUNNING THE SHOW. But now the paleoconservative, the anit-imperialist, the libertarian "get's it" and finds solace and comfort in the arms of the "leftist Boomer".

This is too funny. Until, I guess, old Saint Hillary is running the show... then the kooks'll be whining their way back over here, again.








Post#3824 at 08-18-2002 07:59 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
08-18-2002, 07:59 AM #3824
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

That in seeking to achieve the leftist's utopia, history has time and again revealed to said "libertarian" the sheer lunacy and destructive results of such dream? Odd bedfellows cannot begin to describe such an adulterous arrangement; only a rampant emotional and irrational fear can account for such.

The conspiracy kook jumps to the left side of the ship for fear of the monster he now claims to be lurking on the right... Funny, the lefty Boomer has always known this to be the case, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EVIL REAGAN WAS RUNNING THE SHOW. But now the paleoconservative, the anit-imperialist, the libertarian "get's it" and finds solace and comfort in the arms of the "leftist Boomer".

This is too funny. Until, I guess, old Saint Hillary is running the show... then the kooks'll be whining their way back over here, again.

Perhaps this sort of thing is more to your liking, Marc:

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/horstwessel.html

There is even an English translation referencing the flag-waving, "freedom," and that nasty red menace. Same point in the saeculum and same national mood. You can download it in RealAudio, WAV, or Midi version. Hell, if you write the guy, he may even send it out to you on 8-track for your "hi-fi"! It's not to my tastes, but to each his own.







Post#3825 at 08-18-2002 01:07 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
08-18-2002, 01:07 PM #3825
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Concentration Camps

Stonewall. If you keep up your anti-Bush rhetoric, you might find yourself in an Ass-KKKroft approved concentration camp.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...y14aug14.story

Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision[*] Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.

The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.

Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.

This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights.

Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.

Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps.

Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable.

We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty.

For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty.

Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.

Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks.

His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.

In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer, Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would cut down every law in England to get after the devil.

More's response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast ... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view our laws and traditions as mere obstructions rather than protections in times of peril. But before we allow Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we must take a stand and have the courage to say, "Enough."

Every generation has its test of principle in which people of good faith can no longer remain silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending.
-----------------------------------------