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 194







Post#4826 at 12-03-2002 12:35 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
12-03-2002, 12:35 AM #4826
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
Cronies. Duh.
1987 INTP







Post#4827 at 12-03-2002 12:35 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
12-03-2002, 12:35 AM #4827
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
Cronies. Duh.
1987 INTP







Post#4828 at 12-03-2002 12:35 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
12-03-2002, 12:35 AM #4828
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
Cronies. Duh.
1987 INTP







Post#4829 at 12-03-2002 12:35 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-03-2002, 12:35 AM #4829
Guest

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:







Post#4830 at 12-03-2002 12:35 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-03-2002, 12:35 AM #4830
Guest

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:







Post#4831 at 12-03-2002 12:35 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-03-2002, 12:35 AM #4831
Guest

I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.

That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.

That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:







Post#4832 at 12-03-2002 12:39 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
12-03-2002, 12:39 AM #4832
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
1987 INTP







Post#4833 at 12-03-2002 12:39 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
12-03-2002, 12:39 AM #4833
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
1987 INTP







Post#4834 at 12-03-2002 12:39 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
12-03-2002, 12:39 AM #4834
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
1987 INTP







Post#4835 at 12-03-2002 12:57 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 12:57 AM #4835
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
Heretic. :P

Oh, I'm sorry - that was rather tyrannical of me, wasn't it? :lol:
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4836 at 12-03-2002 12:57 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 12:57 AM #4836
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
Heretic. :P

Oh, I'm sorry - that was rather tyrannical of me, wasn't it? :lol:
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4837 at 12-03-2002 12:57 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 12:57 AM #4837
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
Heretic. :P

Oh, I'm sorry - that was rather tyrannical of me, wasn't it? :lol:
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4838 at 12-03-2002 01:22 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 01:22 AM #4838
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
(T)here is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War.
I'd like to say:

"You take it upon yourself to redefine... away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience... You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.... I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant."

Oh, crud.... I've gotten myself confused. Which of us is the tyrant again?
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4839 at 12-03-2002 01:22 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 01:22 AM #4839
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
(T)here is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War.
I'd like to say:

"You take it upon yourself to redefine... away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience... You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.... I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant."

Oh, crud.... I've gotten myself confused. Which of us is the tyrant again?
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4840 at 12-03-2002 01:22 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 01:22 AM #4840
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
(T)here is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War.
I'd like to say:

"You take it upon yourself to redefine... away from that phrase's usual, customary, and time-honored meaning, in a way that suits your current political convenience... You have the legal right to express your contemptible, freedom-loathing opinion, due to provisions in the Constitution which fly in its face. As I approve of those provisions, though obviously you do not, I cannot make an exception in your case.... I am not saying you have no right to your opinion. I am merely exercising my own parallel right, to point out that your opinion is the squalid ambition of a would-be tyrant."

Oh, crud.... I've gotten myself confused. Which of us is the tyrant again?
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4841 at 12-03-2002 01:52 AM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-03-2002, 01:52 AM #4841
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.
ok, that's what i thought you were trying to do.

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.
possibly so, but sadly, i remain unconvinced, because i have no idea what you're talking about.

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:


Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:
pot, kettle, etc.


TK







Post#4842 at 12-03-2002 01:52 AM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-03-2002, 01:52 AM #4842
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.
ok, that's what i thought you were trying to do.

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.
possibly so, but sadly, i remain unconvinced, because i have no idea what you're talking about.

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:


Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:
pot, kettle, etc.


TK







Post#4843 at 12-03-2002 01:52 AM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-03-2002, 01:52 AM #4843
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
I merely attempted, via words, to lay one mind set upon another.
ok, that's what i thought you were trying to do.

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
That I failed to do so, does not detract from the truth that lies in the, well worn, cyclical mind set.
possibly so, but sadly, i remain unconvinced, because i have no idea what you're talking about.

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:


Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
That you, TK, like to play games with notions of "truth," is getting quite old... and very boring. :wink:
pot, kettle, etc.


TK







Post#4844 at 12-03-2002 01:57 AM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-03-2002, 01:57 AM #4844
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK







Post#4845 at 12-03-2002 01:57 AM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-03-2002, 01:57 AM #4845
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK







Post#4846 at 12-03-2002 01:57 AM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-03-2002, 01:57 AM #4846
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.
does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK







Post#4847 at 12-03-2002 09:14 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 09:14 AM #4847
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by TrollKing
does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?
A rather elegant way way to condense all constitution liberties to 25 words or less.... GJ TK
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4848 at 12-03-2002 09:14 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 09:14 AM #4848
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by TrollKing
does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?
A rather elegant way way to condense all constitution liberties to 25 words or less.... GJ TK
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4849 at 12-03-2002 09:14 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 09:14 AM #4849
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by TrollKing
does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?
A rather elegant way way to condense all constitution liberties to 25 words or less.... GJ TK
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4850 at 12-03-2002 09:35 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-03-2002, 09:35 AM #4850
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Then again... you'd better watch what you say TK, or the Left will put a fatwa out on you. You've just espoused the concept of Natural Law.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort
-----------------------------------------