Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The outcome of the Civil War (600,000 dead and wounded and racial equality delayed by decades) was desirable? You have a peculiar definition of desirable.

The end of slavery probably outweighs the other effects of the civil war like the destruction of the South's industral base, it's economic colonization by the North and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I do not think there could been anyother way to abolish slavery outright.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Some would posit that the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression and the antics of "That Man" were less than desired. And, the First Nations could argue that the "pressing for major change" by the Revolutionaries was largely pressed upon their wigwams and happy hunting grounds west of the Appalachians.

"Suck" may depend upon the positions in Progress.

The Southern states succeeding from the Union started the civil war, because they suspected (rightly so) that President Lincoln would gradually undermine the institution of slavery. Few people in the North in 1861 were going to tolerate the splitting of the union.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Some would posit that the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression and the antics of "That Man" were less than desired. And, the First Nations could argue that the "pressing for major change" by the Revolutionaries was largely pressed upon their wigwams and happy hunting grounds west of the Appalachians.

"Suck" may depend upon the positions in Progress.

The Southern states succeeding from the Union started the civil war, because they suspected (rightly so) that President Lincoln would gradually undermine the institution of slavery. Few people in the North in 1861 were going to tolerate the splitting of the union.

The small book "What they fought for" by James MacPherson explores the letters of the soldiers in the American Revolution. One of the main points that he makes is that many of the soldiers were fighting to implement their vision of the legacy of the American Revolution. A lot of economic expanations have been posited for both the Civil War and the American Revolution. Now even if they are true, you can see that most of your average foot soldiers were fighting for more idealistic reasons. Much as some of us see the fundamentalist Christians as the foot soldiers for our business conservatives and neocon elites.

The small book "What they fought for" by James MacPherson explores the letters of the soldiers in the American Revolution. One of the main points that he makes is that many of the soldiers were fighting to implement their vision of the legacy of the American Revolution. A lot of economic expanations have been posited for both the Civil War and the American Revolution. Now even if they are true, you can see that most of your average foot soldiers were fighting for more idealistic reasons. Much as some of us see the fundamentalist Christians as the foot soldiers for our business conservatives and neocon elites.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

The small book "What they fought for" by James MacPherson explores the letters of the soldiers in the American Revolution. One of the main points that he makes is that many of the soldiers were fighting to implement their vision of the legacy of the American Revolution. A lot of economic expanations have been posited for both the Civil War and the American Revolution. Now even if they are true, you can see that most of your average foot soldiers were fighting for more idealistic reasons. Much as some of us see the fundamentalist Christians as the foot soldiers for our business conservatives and neocon elites.

Yep. In past crises in western civilization the selfish economic and idealistic political motivations have existed in parallel. The victim is generally the remnant autocratic power. One question about upcoming crisis is how long the capitalists and the idealists maintain their alliance against autocratic forces? At what point are the autocrats no longer the threat, so the idealists can turn on the capitalists?

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

The small book "What they fought for" by James MacPherson explores the letters of the soldiers in the American Revolution. One of the main points that he makes is that many of the soldiers were fighting to implement their vision of the legacy of the American Revolution. A lot of economic expanations have been posited for both the Civil War and the American Revolution. Now even if they are true, you can see that most of your average foot soldiers were fighting for more idealistic reasons. Much as some of us see the fundamentalist Christians as the foot soldiers for our business conservatives and neocon elites.

Yep. In past crises in western civilization the selfish economic and idealistic political motivations have existed in parallel. The victim is generally the remnant autocratic power. One question about upcoming crisis is how long the capitalists and the idealists maintain their alliance against autocratic forces? At what point are the autocrats no longer the threat, so the idealists can turn on the capitalists?

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Acton Ellis wrote:
In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology. Although, liberals seem to want the country to stay on the same track as set out by Roosevelt. Sadly, in American turnings, it appears that the group pressing for major change is the one that prevails in the end. eg. the Revolutionaries, the North, New Deal. I fear that if the Dems don't come up with a more radical platform, we will go the way of other 4T groups that were content with the way the country was going in the 3T.
Although those outcomes were desirable. Ours may be the first that sucks.


The outcome of the Civil War (600,000 dead and wounded and racial equality delayed by decades) was desirable? You have a peculiar definition of desirable.

When I said that, I meant that the right groups won, not that everything worked out perfectly. You're right. The North could've handled reconstruction better but boy am I glad they won. Little persnickety are we?

No. It's important that we not romanticize disaster, and the disaster of the Civil War was that it happened at all. It was eminently avoidable.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Acton Ellis wrote:
In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology. Although, liberals seem to want the country to stay on the same track as set out by Roosevelt. Sadly, in American turnings, it appears that the group pressing for major change is the one that prevails in the end. eg. the Revolutionaries, the North, New Deal. I fear that if the Dems don't come up with a more radical platform, we will go the way of other 4T groups that were content with the way the country was going in the 3T.
Although those outcomes were desirable. Ours may be the first that sucks.


The outcome of the Civil War (600,000 dead and wounded and racial equality delayed by decades) was desirable? You have a peculiar definition of desirable.

When I said that, I meant that the right groups won, not that everything worked out perfectly. You're right. The North could've handled reconstruction better but boy am I glad they won. Little persnickety are we?

No. It's important that we not romanticize disaster, and the disaster of the Civil War was that it happened at all. It was eminently avoidable.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society, that's just the way things are. You can never have a society where religion is purely a private matter, irrelevant to public policy.

Acton is basically correct, though in the interests of specificity I would have used the word "fundamentalism" rather than "religion" above.

As for governmental policy, the GOP is no more theocratic than the Democrats.

How so?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society, that's just the way things are. You can never have a society where religion is purely a private matter, irrelevant to public policy.

Acton is basically correct, though in the interests of specificity I would have used the word "fundamentalism" rather than "religion" above.

As for governmental policy, the GOP is no more theocratic than the Democrats.

How so?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

I don't believe the the Civil War was avoidable. To be maintained, slavery needed to be expanded. The South realized that they were slowly being boxed in. They even supported the takeover of Mexico and central America in order to maintain the growth of slavery which, by the way, the Founding Fathers had hoped would die out on its own. In the end it was a group of elites who would do anything to protect their "property" and lifestyle. In a culture of violence and duels which had a strange romanticized concept of itself, war was the only "honorable" way to go.

I don't believe the the Civil War was avoidable. To be maintained, slavery needed to be expanded. The South realized that they were slowly being boxed in. They even supported the takeover of Mexico and central America in order to maintain the growth of slavery which, by the way, the Founding Fathers had hoped would die out on its own. In the end it was a group of elites who would do anything to protect their "property" and lifestyle. In a culture of violence and duels which had a strange romanticized concept of itself, war was the only "honorable" way to go.

As for the Fundie footsoldiers of our day, I actually did some research of my own and determined that the business elite that is at least represented in the government is mostly Silent. eg. Cheney, Snow, O'Neil. In fact, it seems as if Cheney may be the glue that holds this coalition together. Most of the Fundie representatives are Boomers. I think that as the Silents retire, they will be replaced by Boomer/fundies. It's a generational thing.

As for the Fundie footsoldiers of our day, I actually did some research of my own and determined that the business elite that is at least represented in the government is mostly Silent. eg. Cheney, Snow, O'Neil. In fact, it seems as if Cheney may be the glue that holds this coalition together. Most of the Fundie representatives are Boomers. I think that as the Silents retire, they will be replaced by Boomer/fundies. It's a generational thing.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Anyone who has ever been to an auto salvage lot can attest to the prevalence of "hidden treasures" in a pile of scrap metal. What conclusions Foxnews (and msm for that matter) expect us to draw from this tidbit are beyond me...

IOW, no story here, Kiff...

Much obliged, as always.

If Iraq has its own uranium, why have they ever gone to other countries for uranium? (And they have; that's not in dispute.)

I am skeptical that Justin is correct, but I don't care enough to prove it.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Anyone who has ever been to an auto salvage lot can attest to the prevalence of "hidden treasures" in a pile of scrap metal. What conclusions Foxnews (and msm for that matter) expect us to draw from this tidbit are beyond me...

IOW, no story here, Kiff...

Much obliged, as always.

If Iraq has its own uranium, why have they ever gone to other countries for uranium? (And they have; that's not in dispute.)

I am skeptical that Justin is correct, but I don't care enough to prove it.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The media can't report what they don't know.

If only that were true...

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The media can't report what they don't know.

If only that were true...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: a radical flaw in a plan; chose the radical solution of starting all over again.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.

I don't have trouble with religion being 'radical' in the sense of definition 1, but I'll quibble if one is using definitions 2 and 3. Generally religion is a force for stability and tradition. The old time religion was used to justify the divine right of kings, slavery, and the entire Agricultural Age mechanism of autocratic dominance. Twas the Enlightenment principles of equality, rights and democracy that drove the bulk of America's radical changes.

Just what is the Republican radical agenda, and in what sense might it be religious? Unlimited deficit spending? Louis XIVth did that. "It will last my time. After me, the deluge." Nothing much new there. Preemptive unilateral invasions? To some degree, every dominant mainland European power has tried that... Spain around the time of the Armada, the France of Louis XIVth and Napoleon, the Germany of Bismarck and Hitler. It isn't new. It just gets the world mad at you, and doesn't work well in the long run.

To my mind, the vector of change leads away from religious agricultural (red) cultures towards secular industrial cultures, towards more international cooperation, towards more equality, towards better enforcement of human rights. I might suggest 'reactionary' might be more descriptive of Republican policy.

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary

reactionary
1. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: a radical flaw in a plan; chose the radical solution of starting all over again.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.

I don't have trouble with religion being 'radical' in the sense of definition 1, but I'll quibble if one is using definitions 2 and 3. Generally religion is a force for stability and tradition. The old time religion was used to justify the divine right of kings, slavery, and the entire Agricultural Age mechanism of autocratic dominance. Twas the Enlightenment principles of equality, rights and democracy that drove the bulk of America's radical changes.

Just what is the Republican radical agenda, and in what sense might it be religious? Unlimited deficit spending? Louis XIVth did that. "It will last my time. After me, the deluge." Nothing much new there. Preemptive unilateral invasions? To some degree, every dominant mainland European power has tried that... Spain around the time of the Armada, the France of Louis XIVth and Napoleon, the Germany of Bismarck and Hitler. It isn't new. It just gets the world mad at you, and doesn't work well in the long run.

To my mind, the vector of change leads away from religious agricultural (red) cultures towards secular industrial cultures, towards more international cooperation, towards more equality, towards better enforcement of human rights. I might suggest 'reactionary' might be more descriptive of Republican policy.

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary

reactionary
1. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

To my mind, the vector of change leads away from religious agricultural (red) cultures towards secular industrial cultures, towards more international cooperation, towards more equality, towards better enforcement of human rights.

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights. Either there is an objective moral standard, or else there's nothing but acts of will, in which case the only 'rights' that mean anything are those of the powerful, who will have no reason not to look out for their own self-interests.

Technological change, or the shift from agricultural to industrial cultures, are irrelevant to that.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

To my mind, the vector of change leads away from religious agricultural (red) cultures towards secular industrial cultures, towards more international cooperation, towards more equality, towards better enforcement of human rights.

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights. Either there is an objective moral standard, or else there's nothing but acts of will, in which case the only 'rights' that mean anything are those of the powerful, who will have no reason not to look out for their own self-interests.

Technological change, or the shift from agricultural to industrial cultures, are irrelevant to that.