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 318







Post#7926 at 03-10-2004 08:47 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
03-10-2004, 08:47 AM #7926
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

This is something I even talk about in my college classes. I have students that routinely show up in pajama pants. Hell I teach in jeans.

This is also adressed in Seabrook;s Nobrow, where he talks about the self made man dressing to claim his acquired status. He has this wonderful image of his father's suits, including old linen ones for summer vacations, crazy green ones for golfing, and so on. Pajamas and suits were all his father owned - when he swam in his backyard pool he swam naked (to the embarassment of the author). There were three stages of dress a) pajamas, b) suits, and c) undress.







Post#7927 at 03-10-2004 09:45 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-10-2004, 09:45 AM #7927
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Suits your taste

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
This is something I even talk about in my college classes. I have students that routinely show up in pajama pants. Hell I teach in jeans.

This is also adressed in Seabrook's Nobrow, where he talks about the self made man dressing to claim his acquired status. He has this wonderful image of his father's suits, including old linen ones for summer vacations, crazy green ones for golfing, and so on. Pajamas and suits were all his father owned - when he swam in his backyard pool he swam naked (to the embarassment of the author). There were three stages of dress a) pajamas, b) suits, and c) undress.
I too teach in jeans. I show young cattle the way to water and the manger.
I importune them to try their oatmeal clad in denim and plaid shirts.


But, I prefer to interact with my fellow humans in a) pyjamas (with robe and slippers), b) suits (with waistcoat to be sure), c) undress (when at social bathing such as sauna), or d) various outfits for the task at hand (chef's toque and apron; hunting cloths in blaze or camo; shooting jackets; fishing vests; carpenter's apron; etc.) when one recreates.







Post#7928 at 03-10-2004 10:28 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
03-10-2004, 10:28 AM #7928
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Andy:

What part of Texas do you hail from? That's where I grew up.







Post#7929 at 03-10-2004 11:46 AM by Ocicat [at joined Jan 2003 #posts 167]
---
03-10-2004, 11:46 AM #7929
Join Date
Jan 2003
Posts
167

Andy:

What did GIs wear when they were kids? I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just wore smaller versions of the stuff they wore as adults.

I'm not sure people have ever changed all that much in their mores as they age. If Xers wear jeans and t-shirts for the rest of their lives, at least when out of the office, that may well be because that's what they wore as kids and that's what they feel comfortable in.

I remember someone pointing out years ago that we kids would all stop skateboarding as we grew into adulthood, because, at the time, no adults skateboarded. I replied that no adults skateboarded because hardly any adults, at that time, had grown up with it as a significant part of their lives. I said that by 2000 we'd see lots of twenty-somethings skateboarding. And, lo and behold, that's just what we now see. So, is that a sign that adults are behaving more and more like children? Or is it just an indication that people keep doing what they grew up doing and like to do?
No matter how small, every feline is a masterpiece.
-- Leonardo da Vinci







Post#7930 at 03-10-2004 03:36 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
03-10-2004, 03:36 PM #7930
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

The Myth of American Polarization

The Myth of American Polarization
After 10 Years Abroad, a Reporter finds we are more United, Culturally and Politically, than the Shouting Suggests
by Eric Weiner


Conventional wisdom tells us that the United States is more polarized than ever. In the sports jargon that passes for political analysis these days, we are supposedly witnessing a knockdown fight that pits conservatives against liberals, gay-bashers against gay- embracers, hawks against doves, Atkins aficionados against low-fat devotees. We are, the pundits proclaim, at war with ourselves.

Or are we?

Having recently returned to the United States after living abroad for 10 years, I see a very different America. I see a nation that agrees on the vast majority of issues while it indulges in a loud ? and mostly meaningless ? shouting match over the few issues that divide us. If we are in fact polarized, it is only in the way that an AA battery is polarized: two opposite charges but with very little distance separating them.

Take the debate over gay marriage. Both sides are extremely passionate about their views, but they are not as far apart as they appear. For instance, nearly none of those opposed to gay marriage is suggesting that homosexuality be outlawed, as is the case in dozens of nations, including U.S. allies such as India and Morocco.

And when it comes to issues of crime and punishment, we don't hear anyone advocating the caning of those convicted of relatively minor offenses, as is the case in Singapore. Conversely, we don't hear many people advocating "open prisons," where inmates essentially guard themselves, as they do in Denmark.

In other words, what Americans are not talking about is at least as significant as what we are talking about.

Likewise, President Bush and the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, present themselves as two men who are worlds apart, but they have more in common than either would care to admit. Both are Yale graduates who come from privileged backgrounds ? prep schools, summer homes, East Coast roots. Neither candidate would pull U.S. troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither supports universal healthcare.

That is, of course, the way politics works. Candidates don't talk about their shared positions; they need to highlight their differences. Meanwhile, the media magnify those differences because it makes a better story. The result is the illusion of a polarized nation. After all, with the proper lens and the right light, any decent photographer can make a tiny stream look like the Mississippi.

The question is: Why does the American public so readily embrace this myth of polarization? Partly, I think, because it makes us feel good, reinforcing the sense that we are engaged in a feisty debate about issues that really matter. If we disagree so loudly, the logic goes, then surely democracy must be alive and well.

The advent of talk radio (to date mostly right wing, but that is about to change), along with cable TV shout-a-thons and high-octane websites, has fueled the myth of polarization. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum now have an outlet for their rantings and ravings that simply did not exist a decade ago. The current bestseller lists include Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter ? the ranters. But an extremist with a megaphone is still an extremist.

We have confused volume with range. To put it bluntly: Just because we are shouting at each other louder than ever doesn't mean we have something worthwhile to say.

There is, of course, a positive side to all of this. The fact that Americans actually agree on so much means that we don't experience the kind of violent upheaval that plagues much of the world, most recently Haiti. A contested election, a controversial war, a disgruntled minority ? in other countries, these lead to tanks on the streets. In the U.S., they lead to higher cable ratings. Let's not be too quick, however, to pat ourselves on the back. One reason we are such a stable nation is because we have artificially limited the range of policy options we are willing to entertain.

Shout radio and its equally high-decibel siblings have drowned out more thoughtful voices. That leaves no room for ideas that are "off the menu." They never make it to the political table, and that is, I think, unfortunate.

I would rather have returned to a nation truly polarized, truly engaged in a grand ideological tussle, than a raucous street brawl posing as the real thing.
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#7931 at 03-10-2004 05:16 PM by Andy '85 [at Texas joined Aug 2003 #posts 1,465]
---
03-10-2004, 05:16 PM #7931
Join Date
Aug 2003
Location
Texas
Posts
1,465

I like that article because it reinforces my perception that the contentious issues (like gay marriage) are glossed over as hyped entertainment and not taken seriously enough to merit good and real solutions.

And thus why a good portion of the people my age are turned off by politics and registering to vote to see if they can put a stop to this.







Post#7932 at 03-10-2004 06:34 PM by Katie '85 [at joined Sep 2002 #posts 306]
---
03-10-2004, 06:34 PM #7932
Join Date
Sep 2002
Posts
306

Re: 4T=Grownups?

Quote Originally Posted by Andy '85
But it disturbs me to see people twice to three times my age trying to look unrealistically young, meaning they essentially don the same type of clothing that their younger people are wearing. At least this is evident in women more than men since male clothing tends to run homogenous no matter what age you are.
Yes! There's something a little disturbing about looking up from a clothing rack and seeing a woman who is older than my mother buying the same outfit I am.
Much madness is divinest sense. -- Emily Dickinson







Post#7933 at 03-10-2004 10:59 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
03-10-2004, 10:59 PM #7933
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Andy '85
I'm sure the GIs had their casual moments, but from the images I look at, it seems like they know how to be casual and be an adult about it as well. That's something I would like to see in the future.

Take a look at any department store and you'll see images of people no older than probably 30 hawking clothes that appears mature but has that grasp at youthfulness to a fault. And any attempt at a true aged maturity will be tainted with that fashionable touch. You can't look old without being "fabulous!"

Sure they have plus-sized models. How about the plus-40 types?

The thing I wonder is, how would people around my age turn out in 20-30 years in clothes? I know it won't be the high-waist suspenders type of the GIs (or Lost, I don't know), but hmmmm. I just hope I don't see the men of my generations still wearing T-shirts without sleeves. That's just not proper for a later age . . .
Who says it's improper, and what makes it so?







Post#7934 at 03-10-2004 11:05 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
03-10-2004, 11:05 PM #7934
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Unraveling Issues & Crisis Issue

Quote Originally Posted by Andy '85
I like that article because it reinforces my perception that the contentious issues (like gay marriage) are glossed over as hyped entertainment and not taken seriously enough to merit good and real solutions.

And thus why a good portion of the people my age are turned off by politics and registering to vote to see if they can put a stop to this.
A while ago I tried to label much of the apparent red / blue noise as 'unraveling issues.' They are about selfishness and imposing one's values on others. They are not about the continued survival of the nation. This article says much the same thing, only better. I can definitely agree that red/blue debate is seen as a form of entertainment. In various political chat and bulletin boards - including this one - people seem to keep score more by how noisily they can diss the opposition rather than by how well they can come to an agreement on the nature of the problem and how to solve it. Unraveling political debate might become ritualistic. One just knows no true agreement or action can be achieved in a nation divided, so one just has a good time yelling and screaming. If one listens to what the opposition is saying, it is only because one wishes to knock it down. It is not that one seriously considers the values, merits and objectives of the other side.

Which, along with the lack of a red / blue spiral of violence, or even the lack of talk about starting a red / blue spiral of violence, I entirely disagree with those anticipating a red / blue US Civil War II. Does anyone seriously think the gays are going to start blowing up the offices of government bureaucracies striving to deny them their full 'rights'? When a spiral of violence (or cascade) is building, before the first bomb is thrown, there have to be agitators (editorial writers, politicians, street demonstrators, clerics) saying 'This issue is worth fighting for, dying for, killing for.' It isn't happening. The red / blue spiral of violence is going nowhere. There is barely a feeling that red / blue issues are worth voting for.

When someone tries using terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction to erase huge imbalances of wealth... that's a crisis issue. We won't forget the unraveling issues entirely, but they will definitely become secondary. Red and Blue are not that far apart on the Crisis issues. They will come together easily enough, at least on military issues, should the cascade escalate again.

The problem being nation building on the large scale. While Bush 43 disavowed nation building during his campaign, and disavowed addressing the underlying causes of the Islam / US tensions after September 11th, when you conquer a nation it is ever so traditional to rehabilitate it. He couldn't get around nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq. Can we nation build every nation that can't or won't hunt down every last terrorist? If we fail to build some semblance of prosperity in these nations, will the violence go away? If we fail to build some semblance of of prosperity in every last state, can we 'win' the War on Terror?

Which makes the crisis a global crisis, not a preemptive unilateral crisis.







Post#7935 at 03-11-2004 12:52 AM by Andy '85 [at Texas joined Aug 2003 #posts 1,465]
---
03-11-2004, 12:52 AM #7935
Join Date
Aug 2003
Location
Texas
Posts
1,465

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Andy '85
I'm sure the GIs had their casual moments, but from the images I look at, it seems like they know how to be casual and be an adult about it as well. That's something I would like to see in the future.

Take a look at any department store and you'll see images of people no older than probably 30 hawking clothes that appears mature but has that grasp at youthfulness to a fault. And any attempt at a true aged maturity will be tainted with that fashionable touch. You can't look old without being "fabulous!"

Sure they have plus-sized models. How about the plus-40 types?

The thing I wonder is, how would people around my age turn out in 20-30 years in clothes? I know it won't be the high-waist suspenders type of the GIs (or Lost, I don't know), but hmmmm. I just hope I don't see the men of my generations still wearing T-shirts without sleeves. That's just not proper for a later age . . .
Who says it's improper, and what makes it so?
That was just my opinion. I'm just a clothes prude. I make it an effort to find short-sleeve T-shirts with sleeves that stop at the elbows.

It's not an easy thing to do especially with finding one that isn't oversized.

My rationale on the sleeveless T is more to do with waste. I am perfectly fine with tanks, muscle Ts, and wife-beaters since they usually are made that way, but to see people walking around with the evidence of intentional removal of sleeves, jeez.

I think it's a waste.







Post#7936 at 03-15-2004 05:12 PM by Vince Lamb '59 [at Irish Hills, Michigan joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,997]
---
03-15-2004, 05:12 PM #7936
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Irish Hills, Michigan
Posts
1,997

Can you hear and see the new Hayes Code coming?

Standard disclaimers apply.

'Bleep. Don't talk dirty to me no mo'.'
Smut glut: FCC whacks 'Elliot in the Morning'


With the elections eight months off, it seemed we
knew what the hot-button issues would be. Or we
thought we did until Janet Jackson boobed us.
Suddenly, indecency, a quaint term for sure, is our
dark-horse issue, now ahead of the war, the economy,
unemployment, health care.
And unlike these more sober issues, indecency darts
abound by the day, bringing new developments but never
any sense of where it will lead us next.
What might happen this week to top last week?
Congress is working feverishly to pass higher
indecency fines. Howard Stern, convinced President
Bush is out to boot him from radio, is threatening to
quit.
Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael
Powell worries that tougher laws will run into freedom
of speech issues, zigging, as it turns out, as his
agency zags.
On Friday the FCC announced a new crackdown,
proposing a $247,500 fine against Clear Channel's
Washington, D.C., shock jock Elliot Segal and his
?Elliot in the Morning? show for "graphic and explicit
sexual material" designed to "pander to, titillate and
shock listeners."
The segment was broadcast March 13, 2003, and
featured a woman, a Ron Jeremy porn fan, using several
dirty words to explain how she masturbated to Jeremy?s
movies.
The segment was replayed nine times on D.C.?s
WWDC-FM, Bethany Beach, Del.?s WOSC- FM and Richmond's
WRXL-FM. The FCC levied the maximum fine of $27,500
for each occurrence.
Meanwhile, caught up in the indecency fever, CBS
has decided to institute a 10-second delay on
broadcasts of the Final Four of the NCAA men?s
basketball tournament, which begins Thursday, lest one
of the players let something slip or gets smoochy.
Depending on how it goes, the network will likely
begin using a similar delay for NFL games this fall.
CBS is also considering a delay for live segments
of several of its reality shows.
Fox, home in the past of some of the edgiest
programming on network TV, continues to beef up its
standards department, adding employees to monitor
"American Idol" and other reality shows.
MTV, which produced the halftime Jackson show that
aired on CBS during the Super Bowl, will begin using
an audio and video delay for the ?Video Music Awards.?

Last year the show featured Madonna, Britney Spears
and Christina Aguilera smooching.
Viacom, owner of MTV and CBS, will also institute a
delay on Nickelodeon?s kids? show ?U-Pick Live.?
Congressional blustering continued, with the Senate
Commerce Committee passing legislation that joined an
earlier House bill on indecency regulation. The Senate
version included provisions to monitor not just
violent content on broadcast network television but
also that on pay cable and satellite television. The
violations cap for fines would rise to $500,000.
Finally, as the country?s most infamous shock jock
continued threatening to leave the federally regulated
air last week, a number of Americans are wishing him
on his way.
Stern, whose syndicated program was dropped by six
Clear Channel markets last month, spent last week
blaming Bush and vowing to defect to satellite radio.
A new poll from U.S. News & World Report asked, ?If
you could choose only one, which radio host would you
kick off the air??
Sixty percent chose Stern, with Rush Limbaugh
receiving 23 percent, Don Imus 13 percent and G.
Gordon Liddy 4 percent.
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."







Post#7937 at 03-15-2004 05:12 PM by Vince Lamb '59 [at Irish Hills, Michigan joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,997]
---
03-15-2004, 05:12 PM #7937
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Irish Hills, Michigan
Posts
1,997

Can you hear and see the new Hayes Code coming?

Standard disclaimers apply.

'Bleep. Don't talk dirty to me no mo'.'
Smut glut: FCC whacks 'Elliot in the Morning'


With the elections eight months off, it seemed we
knew what the hot-button issues would be. Or we
thought we did until Janet Jackson boobed us.
Suddenly, indecency, a quaint term for sure, is our
dark-horse issue, now ahead of the war, the economy,
unemployment, health care.
And unlike these more sober issues, indecency darts
abound by the day, bringing new developments but never
any sense of where it will lead us next.
What might happen this week to top last week?
Congress is working feverishly to pass higher
indecency fines. Howard Stern, convinced President
Bush is out to boot him from radio, is threatening to
quit.
Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael
Powell worries that tougher laws will run into freedom
of speech issues, zigging, as it turns out, as his
agency zags.
On Friday the FCC announced a new crackdown,
proposing a $247,500 fine against Clear Channel's
Washington, D.C., shock jock Elliot Segal and his
?Elliot in the Morning? show for "graphic and explicit
sexual material" designed to "pander to, titillate and
shock listeners."
The segment was broadcast March 13, 2003, and
featured a woman, a Ron Jeremy porn fan, using several
dirty words to explain how she masturbated to Jeremy?s
movies.
The segment was replayed nine times on D.C.?s
WWDC-FM, Bethany Beach, Del.?s WOSC- FM and Richmond's
WRXL-FM. The FCC levied the maximum fine of $27,500
for each occurrence.
Meanwhile, caught up in the indecency fever, CBS
has decided to institute a 10-second delay on
broadcasts of the Final Four of the NCAA men?s
basketball tournament, which begins Thursday, lest one
of the players let something slip or gets smoochy.
Depending on how it goes, the network will likely
begin using a similar delay for NFL games this fall.
CBS is also considering a delay for live segments
of several of its reality shows.
Fox, home in the past of some of the edgiest
programming on network TV, continues to beef up its
standards department, adding employees to monitor
"American Idol" and other reality shows.
MTV, which produced the halftime Jackson show that
aired on CBS during the Super Bowl, will begin using
an audio and video delay for the ?Video Music Awards.?

Last year the show featured Madonna, Britney Spears
and Christina Aguilera smooching.
Viacom, owner of MTV and CBS, will also institute a
delay on Nickelodeon?s kids? show ?U-Pick Live.?
Congressional blustering continued, with the Senate
Commerce Committee passing legislation that joined an
earlier House bill on indecency regulation. The Senate
version included provisions to monitor not just
violent content on broadcast network television but
also that on pay cable and satellite television. The
violations cap for fines would rise to $500,000.
Finally, as the country?s most infamous shock jock
continued threatening to leave the federally regulated
air last week, a number of Americans are wishing him
on his way.
Stern, whose syndicated program was dropped by six
Clear Channel markets last month, spent last week
blaming Bush and vowing to defect to satellite radio.
A new poll from U.S. News & World Report asked, ?If
you could choose only one, which radio host would you
kick off the air??
Sixty percent chose Stern, with Rush Limbaugh
receiving 23 percent, Don Imus 13 percent and G.
Gordon Liddy 4 percent.
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."







Post#7938 at 03-19-2004 09:39 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-19-2004, 09:39 AM #7938
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

In a Republic's School: Indoctrination

They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.







Post#7939 at 03-19-2004 09:39 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-19-2004, 09:39 AM #7939
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

In a Republic's School: Indoctrination

They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.







Post#7940 at 03-19-2004 09:49 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-19-2004, 09:49 AM #7940
Guest

Re: In a Republic's School: Indoctrination

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?







Post#7941 at 03-19-2004 09:49 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-19-2004, 09:49 AM #7941
Guest

Re: In a Republic's School: Indoctrination

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?







Post#7942 at 03-19-2004 10:10 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-19-2004, 10:10 AM #7942
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Beat What?

Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I think the HRH's in question are interested in "beating" something other than a Bush. HTH







Post#7943 at 03-19-2004 10:10 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-19-2004, 10:10 AM #7943
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Beat What?

Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I think the HRH's in question are interested in "beating" something other than a Bush. HTH







Post#7944 at 03-19-2004 11:30 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
03-19-2004, 11:30 AM #7944
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Good one. :shock:







Post#7945 at 03-19-2004 11:30 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
03-19-2004, 11:30 AM #7945
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Good one. :shock:







Post#7946 at 03-19-2004 11:38 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-19-2004, 11:38 AM #7946
Guest

Re: Beat What?

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I think the HRH's in question are interested in "beating" something other than a Bush. HTH
That is correct. Let me rephrase the question more accurately:

Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat "anyone but Bush": Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?







Post#7947 at 03-19-2004 11:38 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-19-2004, 11:38 AM #7947
Guest

Re: Beat What?

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I think the HRH's in question are interested in "beating" something other than a Bush. HTH
That is correct. Let me rephrase the question more accurately:

Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat "anyone but Bush": Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?







Post#7948 at 03-19-2004 12:47 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-19-2004, 12:47 PM #7948
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Can Marriage Be Saved?

Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I think the HRH's in question are interested in "beating" something other than a Bush. HTH
That is correct. Let me rephrase the question more accurately:

Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat "anyone but Bush": Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I am a Constitutionalist of the Tertium Quid sort. I would have to know if either HRH Bertie or HRH Lee is a legitimist candidate (such as an heir of The Most Christian King) or if one is not ( an Orleanist for example). If the former, he would be preferable to the Buonaparte cousins proffered by the GOP and the Democrat {anyone but Bush} Party; if the latter, "The Citizen-King"-sort gives me pause, but, is still better than a Corsican Corporal's spawn.


But, I still wonder why the YSFOM's of the U.S. are exposed to Royal sodomitic marriage? Is there a lack of commoners that could be "role" models?


And, what of all those Childhold Tales that mix species in Matrimony? Is the Bestialist Union of Beauty & the Beast what we wish for our youth? Such confusion has been noted in the case of the poor Afghan and an unhappy donkey. And, The Frog Prince combines Magick and cross-species affection - can public education be saved? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#7949 at 03-19-2004 12:47 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-19-2004, 12:47 PM #7949
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Can Marriage Be Saved?

Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by oy
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
They are recruiting for Royalty!

Didn't we have a War to stop this Monarchism? Wake up, America.
Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat Bush: Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I think the HRH's in question are interested in "beating" something other than a Bush. HTH
That is correct. Let me rephrase the question more accurately:

Yourself being a quasi-Monarchist, Saari, I'm looking forward to hearing which of the two "Kings" you would prefer to beat "anyone but Bush": Prince Bertie, or the eligible prince he falls for, Prince Lee?
My dear Mr. Lamb, I am a Constitutionalist of the Tertium Quid sort. I would have to know if either HRH Bertie or HRH Lee is a legitimist candidate (such as an heir of The Most Christian King) or if one is not ( an Orleanist for example). If the former, he would be preferable to the Buonaparte cousins proffered by the GOP and the Democrat {anyone but Bush} Party; if the latter, "The Citizen-King"-sort gives me pause, but, is still better than a Corsican Corporal's spawn.


But, I still wonder why the YSFOM's of the U.S. are exposed to Royal sodomitic marriage? Is there a lack of commoners that could be "role" models?


And, what of all those Childhold Tales that mix species in Matrimony? Is the Bestialist Union of Beauty & the Beast what we wish for our youth? Such confusion has been noted in the case of the poor Afghan and an unhappy donkey. And, The Frog Prince combines Magick and cross-species affection - can public education be saved? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#7950 at 03-19-2004 01:28 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
03-19-2004, 01:28 PM #7950
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

More acronyms

YSFOM, Mr. Saari? :?
-----------------------------------------