Originally Posted by Earthshine

This event today is an example of pure stupidity. Now the question is, do we have a 3T or 4T reaction to it?

Check it out, and think carefully.

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...px?news=107942

-----

The real surprise is that this guy has enough testosterone to produce anything to carry his DNA. And since when does he like women?

:lol:

Well, the Germans -- and the Europeans in general -- probably are still in 3T. Otherwise, Wacko Jacko would be in the Berlin City Jail right about now, which he apparently isn't.

A legal question: When MJ returns home to California, can he be prosecuted in Federal court for a crime committed overseas, in this case, Felony Child Endangerment? If so, and it happens, I think we can safely say that we as a society have had a Fourth Turning reaction. Personally, my own reaction to the news footage was one of horror, rather than a cynical Unravelling-style "There he goes again!".

4T indeed.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Earthshine

This event today is an example of pure stupidity. Now the question is, do we have a 3T or 4T reaction to it?
Check it out, and think carefully.
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...px?news=107942
-----
The real surprise is that this guy has enough testosterone to produce anything to carry his DNA. And since when does he like women? :lol:

Well, the Germans -- and the Europeans in general -- probably are still in 3T. Otherwise, Wacko Jacko would be in the Berlin City Jail right about now, which he apparently isn't.

A legal question: When MJ returns home to California, can he be prosecuted in Federal court for a crime committed overseas, in this case, Felony Child Endangerment? If so, and it happens, I think we can safely say that we as a society have had a Fourth Turning reaction. Personally, my own reaction to the news footage was one of horror, rather than a cynical Unravelling-style "There he goes again!".

4T indeed.

Hey, 4Ters!

You might wish to go back and review that MSN "news" story about Jacko. Hell, right beneath the story their hawking Jackson's cds at Walmart and Best Buy.

4T indeed!

4T indeed!

That Little Smiledude is the best one yet. :lol:

God bless Canada:


Canada to U.S.: Mind your business
Don't tell us how to run our military, defence minister admonishes U.S. president. Second Canadian official calls Bush'a moron' for pushing Iraq onto NATO agenda

Robert Fife
The Ottawa Citizen

Thursday, November 21, 2002


http://www.canada.com/national/story...0-785CF30C08D7

Ayyye! Equal time, man.

Shouldn't that read, "Equal time Eh?"
A la Bob and Doug Mac Kenzie.
Take off to the great white white North.....

It's David Frum, who is a Canadian. Obviously, not all of them are wimps, at least by the NR's standards.

BTW, good thing my Canadian girlfriend doesn't read this site!

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

<a snipped mag cover>

Ayyye! Equal time, man.

jonah goldberg is a doofus. he reminds me of that guy in high school that kids let hang out with them just so they had someone to pick on.


TK

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I guess I'd better make it clear that the above is a joke, before the smoke starts coming out of Marc and justmom's ears.

XoE

Thanks, fellow X-er!

I'm not Mom, but I do like apple pie and hot lunches for orphans (to praphrase Dolly Levi) and I do not think America is evil.

The mag cover is pretty funny, since the US got their asses pretty roundly trounced by the Canuks last time they went to war. :wink:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Yesterday, The New Yorks Times ran an op=ed piece by John Miller called A Third Party on the Right in which the writer noted that E2002 "marks the third consecutive election in which a Libertarian has cost the Republican Party a Senate seat. If there had been no Libertarian Senate candidates in recent years, Republicans would not have lost control of the chamber in 2001, and a filibuster-proof, 60-seat majority would likely be within reach."

For numerous reasons, even as a conservative, that article got me all jazzed up. One reason is that if we are in the fourth turn, as so many of the libs believe, it sure as heck is a kinda funny and very uncollective one.

This POV never ceases to entertain me. What business to Repub's have assuming that those votes which went ot a LP candidate would have gone to them? Most Libertarian voters are diametrically opposed to the GOP platform on a number of issues (just as much as they oppose the Dems on other issues). When they say that they see "not a dime of difference" between the two parties, do you assume that is just posturing? Is it inconceivable to the Repubs that more than one type of opposition to themselves can be articulated? Arg. :-?

Hummm, well let's try again.

Keeping Libertarians Inside the Tent

"I read with great interest John Miller's op-ed in the New York Times, "A Third Party on the Right" in which he complains about the close races that have been tipped to the Democrats by those voting for the Libertarian-party candidate. While I am not a libertarian who advises others to vote Libertarian, many of my libertarian friends and relatives feel otherwise. They view the Republican party as cavalier about individual liberty, supporting big government when it serves their purposes as much as Democrats do when it serves theirs. What conservative Republicans often fail to realize is that libertarians are an important constituency that should not be ignored or taken for granted lest their votes be driven to the Libertarian party or even to the Democrats. Telling libertarians they should vote Republican despite their serious reservations about Republican policies is futile. These concerns need to be addressed rather than ignored."

More...

Proposed compromises from the
"Keeping Libertarians Inside the Tent" camp:

The GOP should:
1. Oppose intrusions into privacy as vociferously as you would if it had been proposed by the Clinton administration.

Bad start. Did ya see the towers fall? Did ya nearly crap your pants? Never mind. Let's just

Next!

2. Oppose intrusions upon the Bill of Rights more consistently in Congress. Democrats used to have a far bigger edge over Republicans on the issue of free speech than they do now that their left has endorsed restrictions on politically incorrect speech on campuses... Still, Republicans in Congress should be more principled supporters of the First Amendment than they sometimes are.

There now, have you ever heard a liberal, like Paul Krugman, quote Mises or Hayek? Have you ever read a liberal op-ed extole the virtues of "free speech" for urin-filled jars with crucifixes or for conservatives like Rush Limbaugh?

3. Nominate more libertarian-conservative judges like Clarence Thomas to the courts who care about protecting individual liberty, not just traditionalist-conservative judges like Robert Bork who care most about the "liberty" of the majority to enshrine its preferences into law.

You're talking about abortion, huh? Will ya get mad and bolt when we outlaw "partial-birth" abortions? Probably.

4. Care about federalism in the Congress.



5. Care more about the free market.



6. Stop making snide gratuitous remarks about libertarians.



7. Back off Prohibition.



Conclusion: Unless, of course, Republicans don't really want those extra senators and governors.

Look, I'm just tickled that you all are doing it better than the "Independents" (ie., Socialists) who always vote with the Democrats. If ya catch my drift.

Hehehehe! Seeing as, with passage of the Bush administration's Heimland Security Act, it is over in this country for those who remain loyal to the US Constitution and for those others who merely oppose corporatism, maybe we should consider moving to Canada. Actually, the best plan is for states which border Canada to begin seceding from the Union (seeing as the federal government has long since abandoned the compact, the US Constitution), and then these states would join Canada. As the Canadian border is pushed further south with each secession, states further south on the new border can secede and join Canada without ever having to risk being blockaded on all four sides by the Bush vermin. Most of the United States would probably eventually secede in order to escape the control of the vermin in the White House and pursue freedom as part of some greater Canada. Then of course, Echelon and any other means of perving on and violating the consciences of human beings which exist in Canada would have to be destroyed. Otherwise there is no real difference and no freedom is gained. I am not sure that there is really any other recourse at this point. But it is not likely to happen either.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Nov22.html

(Usual disclaimers)


Canadian Aide Said to Insult Bush

By Tom Cohen
Associated Press Writer
Friday, November 22, 2002; 5:35 PM

TORONTO ?? A private comment that became very public was the talk of Canada on Friday, with newspaper and broadcast reports detailing how an aide to Prime Minister Jean Chretien called President Bush a moron.

Political foes demanded the ouster of Francoise Ducros for what she said Wednesday at the NATO summit in Prague. Ducros offered her resignation Friday, but Chretien refused to accept it.

"What a moron," is the quote attributed to Ducros, Chretien's communications director, during what she called a private conversation with a reporter that was overhead by other reporters who wrote about it.

"If I made comments in the context of what I understood to be a private conversation, I regret that they have attracted so much media attention," Ducros said in a statement. "I accept full responsibility for them and I sincerely apologize."

Chretien, at his closing news conference Friday in Prague, said he turned down Ducros' offer to resign. Ducros told him she was unsure if she made the remark but acknowledged she uses the word "moron" frequently, Chretien said.

"She may have used that word against me a few times and I am sure she used it against you many times," he told journalists, adding that "we don't live in as civilized a world as we used to, where private conversations are private."

Back in Canada, the opposition Canadian Alliance hammered the issue in Parliament, saying the comment showed the anti-American bent of Chretien's governing Liberal Party.

"Isn't it a fact that this anti-American attitude hurts our relationship with the United States, our biggest trade partner?" Grant Hill of the Alliance asked during daily question period.

Not so, said Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, who described relations between the North American neighbors who share the world's largest trade relationship as sound, despite occasional problems.

Chretien also denied the incident harmed relations with Washington, saying he received no official complaints from U.S. officials at the summit. On Thursday, when first asked about the reported comment, he said Bush was "not a moron at all, he's a friend. My personal relations with the president are extremely good."

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told American reporters Thursday: "I just dismiss it as something from someone who doesn't speak for the Canadian government."

Despite their military ties and common democratic values, Canada has traditionally adopted more liberal social policies. Examples include diplomatic ties with Cuba, a ban on capital punishment and more lenient immigration policies.

Increased disputes between Ottawa and Washington were expected when the conservative Bush was elected in 2000 to succeed Bill Clinton, whose administration had closer ideological ties with Chretien's Liberal Party.

Since Bush's election, the United States has imposed punitive duties on softwood lumber imported from Canada and is investigating possible penalties on Canadian wheat.

Nevertheless, Canada took in flights diverted from U.S. air space after the Sept. 11 attacks and contributed troops, ships and reconnaissance planes to the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. Chretien said Canada also would take part in a U.N.-authorized attack on Iraq.

? 2002 The Associated Press

Prime Minister Jean Chretien called President Bush a moron.

He'd better be careful, he's pretty close to a "cretin" himself.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I guess I'd better make it clear that the above is a joke, before the smoke starts coming out of Marc and justmom's ears.

XoE

Or mine, for that matter. Have you read my arguments with Stonewall and Eric Meece?

I had gotten about 3 sentences done with Stonewall's post. Then I noticed that the post was written by Stonewall, upon which I refused to read further as a matter of principle.

Wow! Hey X'r thanks for the compliment. 8)

Originally Posted by The Grammarian

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[ the real-life sniper John Allen Williams Mohammed.

The real name is "John Allen Muhammad". You can add nee "Williams" if you like.

No, no, no, Grammarian! It's n? Williams! "N?e" is for women only! Can't even a grammarian get anything right?

Originally Posted by justmom

Well, that was fun.
BTW Kevin, the pepper thing, borrowed from my dear dad. It is choice.

OK, on to "Evidence"...

I have noticed a mood change in the tv shows lately.
Since 9/11? Not sure.

Last night there was a sniper episode on CSI Miami.
Anyone see it?
At the very end, the sniper is caught. He sneers at the cop and says, "Don't you want to know why?"

But according to the S&H books, entertainment in a 4T is also supposed to all be escapist and for the purpose of getting your mind off the 4T events. (As for me right now, OTOH, I don't need entertainment to avoid thinking about the "events" going on in the world today. I can avoid them when I'm not at this site or reading the newspaper or watching "The Daily Show".) Entertainment that pertains to real-world events like an episode based on the sniper is supposed to be much rarer than in a 3T, if it exists at all.

I've recently decided we are cusping. Not a 3T not quite 4T.
Just as toddlerhood segues into childhood into adolesence into young adulthood, etc.....
Some days are more one then the other, they flip flop from the one stage to the other. All the while heading into the next stage one day almost indiscernable from the day before.

It's what we have here. Some Boomers like Kiff and Susan not fully boom,
not fully X.

I think we all agree we aren't in the same mood as we were in say, the late 80's - early 90's. However we aren't in the 4T as one would understand all attributes of a 4T. Hell, we can't even decide when the 3T started, and that's history. How could we be expected to know a 4T segue if we are in it?

Originally Posted by voltronx

Originally Posted by The Grammarian

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[ the real-life sniper John Allen Williams Mohammed.

The real name is "John Allen Muhammad". You can add nee "Williams" if you like.

No, no, no, Grammarian! It's n? Williams! "N?e" is for women only! Can't even a grammarian get anything right?

:LOL:... for those who like it, nitpicking is fun (and can give one a vindictive sense of power if accompanied by the proper evil laugh :evil: :lol: )

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I guess I'd better make it clear that the above is a joke, before the smoke starts coming out of Marc and justmom's ears.

XoE

Or mine, for that matter. Have you read my arguments with Stonewall and Eric Meece?

Have you read MY arguments with Eric Meece? :lol: :lol: :lol: This is getting more confusing by the minute!

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I had gotten about 3 sentences done with Stonewall's post. Then I noticed that the post was written by Stonewall, upon which I refused to read further as a matter of principle.

Well, I am glad to see that principles mean something to you, Alex. That is a good start. I cannot keep up with everybody's posts here but I will continue to read yours even if you decide to stop reading mine. I was 15 once too so I know what it's like to have your head up your ass. Don't worry, you will grow out of it! Listen to what I say and you will grow out of it sooner! :lol: :lol: :lol:

(I'm just kidding here, Alex! I really cannot get mad at a 15 year old kid. After all, I was 15 once myself. Like I said, you will grow out of it.)

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by voltronx

Originally Posted by The Grammarian

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[ the real-life sniper John Allen Williams Mohammed.

The real name is "John Allen Muhammad". You can add nee "Williams" if you like.

No, no, no, Grammarian! It's n? Williams! "N?e" is for women only! Can't even a grammarian get anything right?

:LOL:... for those who like it, nitpicking is fun (and can give one a vindictive sense of power if accompanied by the proper evil laugh :evil: :lol: )

Maybe the sniper really was doing his sidekick, it that case could one use
"Nee" ?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I had gotten about 3 sentences done with Stonewall's post. Then I noticed that the post was written by Stonewall, upon which I refused to read further as a matter of principle.

Here, you ought to appreciate these, Alex. Just magnetize them and stick 'em on your fridge :wink: :