Originally Posted by Hamish MacPherson

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

I definitely am not looking forward to the 4T, it seems more and more frightening to me as it gets closer.

Regardless of whether or not it's here yet (I think it is), I feel like we're circling the drain at increasing speed, and at some point we're going to get sucked down it.

1. Of course having a Republican in the White House is probably contributing to your "sucked down" feeling, huh?

2. Can you imagine that 18% of the U.S. working population, still unemployed twelve years into the previous fourth turn, felt past the "sucked down it" stage? And to think what awaited them in 1941! Like the Bataan death march, like the bloody butchery at Tarawa and in the Italian campaign, like Point du Hoc, like...

Conclusion: Perhaps you can understand why we be 4T, and why George Bush and the Republicans are going to win big in the election? ... No liberal Democrat would ever suck down the American people, like they did in the last fourth, again! :wink:

Originally Posted by monoghan

This just in. Rush Limbaugh is reportedly dating some anchor from CNN.

So is this Carville-Matlin 3T? Or just a corporatist (corpulent?) merger?

Maybe she is hooked into the pharmaceutical industry. Limbaugh could have a new "mule."

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by monoghan

This just in. Rush Limbaugh is reportedly dating some anchor from CNN.

So is this Carville-Matlin 3T? Or just a corporatist (corpulent?) merger?

Maybe she is hooked into the pharmaceutical industry. Limbaugh could have a new "mule."

Yeah, I think Marta was a Democrat too. :lol:

I recently came by this news item, written by the then premier news reporter, Ed Murrow, following the attacks on Pearl in 1941. Judging from this piece, which sounds eerily familiar to the present-day Democratic Party, we may very well be 4T, and Kerry could in fact be the next Gray Champion.

Read it, and let us know what you think...

What Should We Do?

By Edward R. Murrow
Washington, D.C.
December 8, 1941

President Roosevelt will call for a joint session of Congress today to discuss yesterday's bombing of Pearl Harbor and the reported loss of 2,400 Americans. I can report that our commander-in-chief is calm and will not ask for a precipitous "outright" declaration of war against the Japanese, but instead leans toward a general consensus to "hunt down the perpetrators" of this act of "infamy." Speaking for the Congress, Senator Arthur Vandenberg promised bipartisan support to "bring to justice" the Japanese pilots. Many believe that the "rogue" airmen may well have flown from Japanese warships. In response, Secretary of War Stimson is calling for "an international coalition to indict these cowardly purveyors of death," and will shortly ask the Japanese imperial government to hand over the suspected airman from the Akagi and Kaga ? "and any more of these cruel fanatics who took off from ships involved in this dastardly act." Assistant Secretary Robert Patterson was said to have remarked, "Stimson is madder than hell ? poor old Admiral Yamamato has a lot of explaining to do."

Secretary of State Cordell Hull, however, this morning cautioned the nation about such "jingoism." He warned, "The last thing we want is another Maine or Lusitania. We wouldn't want to start something like a Second World War and ruin the real progress in Japanese-American relations over the last few years." Hull himself is preparing for a long tour to consult our allies in South America, Africa, and colonial France: "If we get the world on board, and make them understand that this is not merely an aggressive act upon us, much less just an American problem, such a solid front may well deter further Japanese action."

Even as Hull prepares to depart, special envoy Harry Hopkins is calling for a general statement of concern from the League of Nations, condemning not only the most recent Japanese aggression, but also an earlier reported incident in Nanking, China. "If we can get an expression of outrage from the League, Japan may well find itself in an interesting pickle. We're looking for some strong League action of the type that followed the banditry in Ethiopia and Finland." Hopkins finished by emphasizing the rather limited nature of the one-day Pearl Harbor incursion, and suggesting such piecemeal attacks were themselves a direct result of past American restraint. "We did not rattle our sabers when they went into China. Had we listened to the alarmists then, we might well be seeing Japanese anger manifesting itself from the Philippines to Wake Island in the coming days."

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., a few hours ago reminded the nation of the current disturbing economic news. "Four million Americans are still out of work. Americans are not out of this Depression by any means. Are we to borrow money to build planes that we don't even know will fly?" The industrialist Henry Kaiser was no more optimistic: "There is simply no liquidity in these markets. We shouldn't even be considering rearming. It is not as if we are going to build a ship a day. Even launching a carrier every couple of years could put us back to 1932."

Military leaders, smarting over yesterday's losses, were no more ready for war. Even the usually colorful Admiral Halsey sounded a note of concern to this reporter, "Look, they have all the cards, not us. The bastards over there could give us a decade of war at least. Where do I get bases for my subs and flattops? Who gives me strips for the flyboys? This could be a new war with no rules. Believe me, brother, we ain't going to Midway or some place like that in six months and cut down to size the whole damn imperial fleet. It's just not going to happen." Admiral King was nearly as blunt, "Hell's bells, no one has ever conquered Japan since they kicked the Portuguese out. Do the American people really want to go over to that part of the world and fight those samurai madmen? The logistics are impossible. These people have been at war for years. I've seen these Zeros ? you put a suicide basket case with a wish to die for the emperor in with a tank of gas, and you've got a guided rocket that will blow our ships out of the water." Colonel James Doolittle was even more cautious than the top brass when told of calls for potential early American counterattacks. "Swell ? the last thing we need is to send in some hot-dogger to drop a few bombs for the press boys that cause no real damage and get our fellas killed in the bargain."

On the home front, prominent voices in the arts expressed far stronger reservations about possible American "revenge". Robert Maynard Hutchins of the University of Chicago explained to me that the Pearl Harbor incident cannot be separated from its larger cultural context. "We must guard against this absurd and ongoing moral absolutism on the part of the United States in seeing complex cultural differences in black and white terms of the Occident and the Orient. We have no monopoly on morality or justice." His colleague, Mortimer J. Adler, elaborated: "Far too often we look at the world through Western lenses. But in Japanese eyes, this rather desperate attack is seen as a "slap", a lashing out of sorts to get the attention of the United States, really more of a desperate cry of the heart than anything else." Adler went on, "Japan has had a tradition of isolation from and distrust of Western civilization ? rightly so in some respects, given everything from past European missionaries to racism, economic exploitation, and colonialism. If we inflame passions, they may well simply divorce themselves from the world community ? or worse, set off a conflagration of pan-Asian hatred toward Occidentals that could last for generations. It seems to me Pearl Harbor is rather more of a case of Admiral Perry's chickens at long last coming home to roost."

Contacted at home, the noted naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison was pessimistic about the strategy involved in any U.S. response: "Good God, do they want us to fight the entire world ? Germany, Italy, Hungry, Bulgaria, Romania, and now Japan? We lose 2,400 sailors ? less than an annual poliomyelitis outbreak ? and then we start a World War II? I find these calls for mindless retaliation not only na?ve, but disturbing as well in their failure to take account of America's strategic impotence. That's a part of the world we know very little about."

Prominent American clergymen blasted the very idea of armed retaliation, calling instead for interfaith services and greater tolerance of Japanese religious beliefs. Cardinal Cushing warned against castigating the entire Japanese people for the actions of a few fanatics, adding that "Bushido, is, in fact, merely a variant of Shintoism, itself an age-old and misunderstood faith that is as humane as anything in Christian teaching." Cushing added, "There is nothing in Bushido, much less Shintoism that is inherently bellicose or at all anti-Western. These few extremists are hardly representative of either public or religious opinion in Japan." Cushing concluded, "The Emperor himself is a pacifist, a Zen scholar in fact deeply devoted to entomology, with no interest at all in bloodshed. And so the better question might be posed: 'Why does so much of Asia hate us?'"

Celebrated director John Ford reflected Hollywood's unease with the early rumors of war. "Hell, we are artists, not mouthpieces. What are we to do ? join the Navy to make movies on government spec? Had we had more Japanese films available to the American people in the first place, we wouldn't have had this misunderstanding." A few Hollywood stars who were willing to speak on the record agreed. Jimmy Stewart called for a world conference of concerned actors and screenwriters. "There have been some great Japanese movies. We need to reach out to our brother actors over there. The last thing we need is a bunch of us would-be pilots storming over to Burbank to enlist." Clark Gable was adamant in his belief in keeping America from doing something "stupid," as he put it. "If you haven't heard lately: We're actors, artists really, not war-mongers. I'm sure that our Japanese counterparts feel the same way. We need to put away the B-17s and get the cameras rolling on both sides."

Celebrated veterans were especially angered about knee-jerk American anger. Alvin C. York, Medal of Honor winner and hero of the Great War, was reported as "madder than hell" at the "war scare." "We shouldn't fight in some jungle island just because the Japanese hate old man Rockefeller as much as we do."

In an in-depth newsmaker interview, 81-year-old General John J. Pershing told Henry Luce of Time magazine, "I've made war before ? long and hard. I've seen it. These sunshine sluggers talk a great game, but wait until our dead pile up. No, it is time to collect our thoughts and think like adults for a change. Lashing back is just what these extremists want us to do. If a war breaks out, then their mission is accomplished. I'd hate to see us playing into the hands of a few militarists who want to topple the moderates and the emperor. This ocean war with carriers is an entirely new challenge, nothing like we have ever seen before. Why get our boys killed only to make a few samurai martyrs?"

And so it is with confidence today that this reporter assures the American people and the world that sobriety, maturity, and prudence ? not bombs ? are the watchwords on the home front. Remember ? our enemies can only win if they make us answer their violence with more needless violence.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I recently came by this news item, written by the then premier news reporter, Ed Murrow, following the attacks on Pearl in 1941. Judging from this piece, which sounds eerily familiar to the present-day Democratic Party, we may very well be 4T, and Kerry could in fact be the next Gray Champion.

Read it, and let us know what you think...

What Should We Do?

By Edward R. Murrow
Washington, D.C.
December 8, 1941

President Roosevelt will call for a joint session of Congress today to discuss yesterday's bombing of Pearl Harbor and the reported loss of 2,400 Americans...

Nice! Your best work in months -- the drop-cap was a perfect touch.

So when do you think we should begin bombing Saudi Arabia? :twisted:

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I recently came by this news item, written by the then premier news reporter, Ed Murrow, following the attacks on Pearl in 1941. Judging from this piece, which sounds eerily familiar to the present-day Democratic Party, we may very well be 4T, and Kerry could in fact be the next Gray Champion.

Read it, and let us know what you think...

What Should We Do?

By Edward R. Murrow
Washington, D.C.
December 8, 1941

President Roosevelt will call for a joint session of Congress today to discuss yesterday's bombing of Pearl Harbor and the reported loss of 2,400 Americans...

Nice! Your best work in months -- the drop-cap was a perfect touch.

So when do you think we should begin bombing Saudi Arabia? :twisted:

I guess, by extension, the Devil's Ass is suggesting that FDR should have invaded Spain after the attack on Pearl Harbor. :shock:

Almost reminds me of the hilarious idiocy in that Animal House scene about the Germans . . . :wink:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Paganism or not, [Victor Davis] Hanson is an excellent writer. I consider him a must read. He's also an excellent speaker if you've ever heard him on NPR or CSPAN. The guy knows his stuff.

I recently came by this news item, written by the then premier news reporter, Ed Murrow... Read it, and let us know what you think...

What Should We Do?

By Edward R. Murrow
Washington, D.C.
December 8, 1941

President Roosevelt will call for a joint session of Congress today to discuss yesterday's bombing of Pearl Harbor and the reported loss of 2,400 Americans...

I guess, by extension, the Devil's Ass is suggesting that FDR should have invaded Spain after the attack on Pearl Harbor. :shock:

Almost reminds me of the hilarious idiocy in that Animal House scene about the Germans . . . :wink:

Uh, Mr. wanna be prez, it was Victor Davis Hanson who wrote the Murrow piece. He published it (here, in "neocon" heaven) on September 27, 2001.

Thanks for your thots, dude.

Originally Posted by my dear Mr. Lamb

I recently came by this news item, written by the then premier news reporter, Ed Murrow, following the attacks on Pearl in 1941. Judging from this piece, which sounds eerily familiar to the present-day Democratic Party, we may very well be 4T, and Kerry could in fact be the next Gray Champion.

Read it, and let us know what you think...

What Should We Do?

I think the tale FDR actually told Mr. Murrow about knowledge of a coming attack by the Japanese would have made a better parody, my dear Mr. Lamb. But, Dubya and FDR are both Republicans now just as Honest Abe and the somewhat less than honest John are now in the Democrat Party.

The President Lied Us into War But, he really, really cares about the mistreatment of the people of Nanking :wink: but America wouldn't go for that so we will have to go with the official version :wink: :wink: :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Paganism or not, [Victor Davis] Hanson is an excellent writer. I consider him a must read. He's also an excellent speaker if you've ever heard him on NPR or CSPAN. The guy knows his stuff.

I recently came by this news item, written by the then premier news reporter, Ed Murrow... Read it, and let us know what you think...

What Should We Do?

By Edward R. Murrow
Washington, D.C.
December 8, 1941

President Roosevelt will call for a joint session of Congress today to discuss yesterday's bombing of Pearl Harbor and the reported loss of 2,400 Americans...

I guess, by extension, the Devil's Ass is suggesting that FDR should have invaded Spain after the attack on Pearl Harbor. :shock:

Almost reminds me of the hilarious idiocy in that Animal House scene about the Germans . . . :wink:

Uh, Mr. wanna be prez, it was Victor Davis Hanson who wrote the Murrow piece. He published it (here, in "neocon" heaven) on September 27, 2001.

Thanks for your thots, dude.

Hanson is a brilliant war historian. I've read Carnage & Culture and loved it. I agree with his analysis on Vietnam. But he and the neocons have gravely miscalculated on how to react to 9/11. He and his kind are right, dead right, that we should counter harshly and ruthlessly. But we should attack and eliminate those who attacked us. Or at the very, very, very least finish those off before going on to attack some theoretical larger problem like bringing democracy to the whole Middle East.

And we should, as Hanson himself suggests in his book, have an open and democratic discussion about the merits of pursuing such a project. He states, very correctly, that that is one of the characteristics that in the long run makes us so powerful. Instead, those he now supports duped us into pursuing said project by drumming up "imminent threats" they knew not to exist and insinuated that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which they didn't.

And as for obliterating the attackers, why haven't we obliterated them yet? Hanson says, "Westerners . . . are willing to obliterate rather than check or [merely] humiliate any who stand in their way."[Carnage, p. 22] Why haven't we done this with the Al Qaeda leadership and the Taliban? Why are they still around? Why are they regrouping? Why do we still have to worry about attacks against New York, Washington, or some other American municipality such as some bodunk medieval village in southern Ohio, being attacked with the attacked planned and approved in the Hindu Kush?

I'll tell you why. Hanson says part of the West's secret is the use of phalanx-style "frontal assualt/ shock battle"[Ibid., Chp 3] and the total obliteration policy (see Sherman, McArthur). Yet instead, we are f*cking around in a country that did not attack us off on some Wolfowitzian Wet Dream wasting the usefulness and lives of 130,000 soldiers that should be in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan fighting "face-to-face" battles (another Hansonian favorite) with subhuman Mujahidin pieces of sh*t.

Instead we fight in Afghanistan with "special ops" forces and with "stealth" to fight a "new war". We have at best one-seventh the resources committed to Afghanistan as we do Iraq. How 3T and how incredibly un-Hansonian!

Hell, we should have half a million soliders over there making the life of any holy warrior caught between the Indian Ocean and the Tien Shan a living nightmare. And if Pakistan doesn't play ball, maybe we should nuke the f*ckers.

I'm serious. Attacking America should be shown to be suicidal and that we mean business. DEADLY BUSINESS. When Wolfowitz talked shortly after 9/11 about "ending states" that supported anti-US terrorism, I was all with him. But Afghanistan was the state. And if Pakistan didn't help out, they to would one of those states. IRAQ WAS NOT THAT STATE. If we are going to be labeled imperialists and a pariah by the world community it ought to be for something worthwhile like eliminating those who actually attacked us and eliminating anyone who gets in our way doing it. Then everyone will think twice, thrice, hopefully forever, about attacking us again or supporting anyone who might even remotely think about it.

So here we are futzin' around Mesopotamia, wasting blood, treasure, and reputation while our attackers live in Pashtunistan unobliterated.

Hanson should know better.

As for you you worthless pile of dung, go on supporting the guy who is putting us in more danger and not doing what Hanson himself recommends (at least in his books). And keep on playing Belushi's Bluto . . .

"Was it over when the Iraqis knocked down the Twin Towers?!? Hell no!!!"

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Uh, Mr. wanna be prez, it was Victor Davis Hanson who wrote the Murrow piece. He published it (here, in "neocon" heaven) on September 27, 2001.

Boy, do I feel silly - I thought you had composed it. :oops: No wonder it was such an improvement over your usual output. :?

I remember you posting something similar about the time I first joined the forum, and I pointed out then that according to the S&H hypothesis, Pearl Harbor was a dozen years after the beginning of the 4T, where we are currently at most a few years past the catalyst, if it has even come yet at all. Everything in the last several months has only served to reinforce to my mind that the catalyst has not happened yet. Has your position changed?

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Sorry, Sean, but I don't remember that movie.

Today's events in southern Russia cause me to imagine what an "October surprise" in America might entail. The net effect of such terrorism would only raise our blood against it, and, in doing so, re-elect The Mumbler. Seattle talk radio, even among liberals, airs reactionary attitudes: "Either we annihilate them or they will get us sooner than later." "Obliteration is the only thing they understand." "Even their children live for the day they will blow themselves up in a crowd of Westerners."

America will eventually decide that obliteration may be one of the few options available. American scientific journals are already discussing the use of nuclear weapons. If terrorism of the kind Russian now suffers comes to our classrooms, I'd say a 4T Crisis would be ignited. And I worry that our reactionary politics will exacerbate said Crisis to historic proportions.

Marc, what would FDR have done with this scenario? Can't wait for you reply.

--Croaker

Seattle talk-show host, Dori Monson (who manages somehow without a brain), said yesterday of the Chechnian/Islamic terrorist attack on a Russian school: "We should reduce every mosque in the world to glass."

You know, that just might do the trick.

--J. Robert Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Seattle talk-show host, Dori Monson (who manages somehow without a brain), said yesterday of the Chechnian/Islamic terrorist attack on a Russian school: "We should reduce every mosque in the world to glass."

--J. Robert Croakmore

Sad; he used to be almost bearable, in a Ken Schramm sort of way.

Monson's personal journey from local curmudgeon to Limbaugh-lite is a curious and pathetic one; but I'm not sure that it reflects a larger trend. I think it's mostly an effort to follow on the coattails of the success of the winger station KTTH.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Seattle talk-show host, Dori Monson (who manages somehow without a brain), said yesterday of the Chechnian/Islamic terrorist attack on a Russian school: "We should reduce every mosque in the world to glass."

--J. Robert Croakmore

Sad; he used to be almost bearable, in a Ken Schramm sort of way.

Monson's personal journey from local curmudgeon to Limbaugh-lite is a curious and pathetic one; but I'm not sure that it reflects a larger trend. I think it's mostly an effort to follow on the coattails of the success of the winger station KTTH.

Croakie:
Were you listening to him on the radio when he said this, or did someone tell you that it was so? I heard some of that hour of the broadcast yesterday and didn't hear Mr. Monson say such a thing. I suspect that someone called in and ranted their own belief that mosques should be melted into lovely glass sculptures, and your source transformed that person's statement into becoming Mr. Monson's own words.
I have observed this phenomenon the last few years. People who disagree with a talk show host's political persuasions are quick to claim that a caller's words are actually those of the hosts. In Seattle the loony-tunes Left is very prone to do things like this, which to me is a form of lying, but hey, its ok because, you know, you can't make an ommelette without breaking a few eggs and anything is fair to do to the other side because our side is right and pure and.......
WTF, just my rant this afternoon from a crabby old boomer.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Sorry, Sean, but I don't remember that movie.

Today's events in southern Russia cause me to imagine what an "October surprise" in America might entail. The net effect of such terrorism would only raise our blood against it, and, in doing so, re-elect The Mumbler. Seattle talk radio, even among liberals, airs reactionary attitudes: "Either we annihilate them or they will get us sooner than later." "Obliteration is the only thing they understand." "Even their children live for the day they will blow themselves up in a crowd of Westerners."

America will eventually decide that obliteration may be one of the few options available. American scientific journals are already discussing the use of nuclear weapons. If terrorism of the kind Russian now suffers comes to our classrooms, I'd say a 4T Crisis would be ignited. And I worry that our reactionary politics will exacerbate said Crisis to historic proportions.

Marc, what would FDR have done with this scenario? Can't wait for you reply.

--Croaker

Seattle talk-show host, Dori Monson (who manages somehow without a brain), said yesterday of the Chechnian/Islamic terrorist attack on a Russian school: "We should reduce every mosque in the world to glass."

You know, that just might do the trick.

--J. Robert Croakmore

It would do the trick. But it would be highly uneconomical, not to mention inhumane, though very 4Tish.

I fear that the Islamic World may face a catastrophic pounding from several quarters since they don't seem "to work or play well with others". They appear to have a problem with every other civilization they come in contact with.

Let's see, who's pissed at them? There's America, Russia, India, Israel, Christian Africans, . . . and they'll probably find a way to push even the Europeans into fighting (yes HC, if you're listening, it's possible). So far so good with China. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Axis alliance is Sino-Islamic (but they'd need to ignore their differences over the Uygur problem in Xinjiang).

Come the 4T, your right, a combination of disproportional response and number of nations pissed could spell obliteration.

Indeed, Samuel Huntington commented on this in his Clash of Civilizations... book.

The mildest response might be a global apartheid enforced by concentration camps, mass migrations at gunpoint, etc.

Moving up the scale...biological warfare? This would be similar to 1999: The Texas-Israeli War. The Russians are known to have considerable stockpiles.

And then there are nukes....

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Indeed, Samuel Huntington commented on this in his Clash of Civilizations... book.

The mildest response might be a global apartheid enforced by concentration camps, mass migrations at gunpoint, etc.

Moving up the scale...biological warfare? This would be similar to 1999: The Texas-Israeli War. The Russians are known to have considerable stockpiles.

And then there are nukes....

Indeed. And then there are nukes. :shock:

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Seattle talk-show host, Dori Monson (who manages somehow without a brain), said yesterday of the Chechnian/Islamic terrorist attack on a Russian school: "We should reduce every mosque in the world to glass."

--J. Robert Croakmore

Sad; he used to be almost bearable, in a Ken Schramm sort of way.

Monson's personal journey from local curmudgeon to Limbaugh-lite is a curious and pathetic one; but I'm not sure that it reflects a larger trend. I think it's mostly an effort to follow on the coattails of the success of the winger station KTTH.

Croakie:
Were you listening to him on the radio when he said this, or did someone tell you that it was so? I heard some of that hour of the broadcast yesterday and didn't hear Mr. Monson say such a thing. I suspect that someone called in and ranted their own belief that mosques should be melted into lovely glass sculptures, and your source transformed that person's statement into becoming Mr. Monson's own words.
I have observed this phenomenon the last few years. People who disagree with a talk show host's political persuasions are quick to claim that a caller's words are actually those of the hosts. In Seattle the loony-tunes Left is very prone to do things like this, which to me is a form of lying, but hey, its ok because, you know, you can't make an ommelette without breaking a few eggs and anything is fair to do to the other side because our side is right and pure and.......
WTF, just my rant this afternoon from a crabby old boomer.

No, I heard Dori Monson say those words almost exactly. But I will admit that he said them in a conext of such an event ocurring in America. His overriding point was to say that obliteration will be necessary, sooner or later. He bristles like punk on Budweiser.

--Croakie

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Seattle talk-show host, Dori Monson (who manages somehow without a brain), said yesterday of the Chechnian/Islamic terrorist attack on a Russian school: "We should reduce every mosque in the world to glass."

--J. Robert Croakmore

Sad; he used to be almost bearable, in a Ken Schramm sort of way.

Monson's personal journey from local curmudgeon to Limbaugh-lite is a curious and pathetic one; but I'm not sure that it reflects a larger trend. I think it's mostly an effort to follow on the coattails of the success of the winger station KTTH.

Croakie:
Were you listening to him on the radio when he said this, or did someone tell you that it was so? I heard some of that hour of the broadcast yesterday and didn't hear Mr. Monson say such a thing. I suspect that someone called in and ranted their own belief that mosques should be melted into lovely glass sculptures, and your source transformed that person's statement into becoming Mr. Monson's own words.
I have observed this phenomenon the last few years. People who disagree with a talk show host's political persuasions are quick to claim that a caller's words are actually those of the hosts. In Seattle the loony-tunes Left is very prone to do things like this, which to me is a form of lying, but hey, its ok because, you know, you can't make an ommelette without breaking a few eggs and anything is fair to do to the other side because our side is right and pure and.......
WTF, just my rant this afternoon from a crabby old boomer.

No, I heard Dori Monson say those words almost exactly. But I will admit that he said them in a conext of such an event ocurring in America. His overriding point was to say that obliteration will be necessary, sooner or later. He bristles like punk on Budweiser.

--Croakie

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Indeed, Samuel Huntington commented on this in his Clash of Civilizations... book.

The mildest response might be a global apartheid enforced by concentration camps, mass migrations at gunpoint, etc.

Moving up the scale...biological warfare? This would be similar to 1999: The Texas-Israeli War. The Russians are known to have considerable stockpiles.

And then there are nukes....

Indeed. And then there are nukes. :shock:

Yeah, but for some reason biochemical agents scare me far more than nukes. Perhaps it is because nuclear missiles and mushrooms clouds are tangible things that you can actually see, while bugs and toxins are invisible. Who knows? All I can say is that the science-fiction episodes that have send the most violent shivers up my spine are those that involve diseases and poisons: Star Trek's "Miri" and "Omega Glory", DS9's "The Harvesters"(if that was its name), and "Dark Rain" from the Outer Limits which I've posted about elsewhere on this site.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Indeed. And then there are nukes. :shock:

Yeah, but for some reason biochemical agents scare me far more than nukes. Perhaps it is because nuclear missiles and mushrooms clouds are tangible things that you can actually see, while bugs and toxins are invisible. Who knows? All I can say is that the science-fiction episodes that have send the most violent shivers up my spine are those that involve diseases and poisons: Star Trek's "Miri" and "Omega Glory", DS9's "The Harvesters" (if that was its name), and "Dark Rain" from the Outer Limits which I've posted about elsewhere on this site.

Fear of biological threats is hard-wired into our limbic system (the area of the brain responsible for emotions and the "flight-or-fight" response); it's the reason why most of us still have a visceral revulsion for spiders and snakes. It's not irrational; it's pre-rational. It's important to remember that most of the time, we don't act intelligently at all; we're just naked apes.

Unfortunately, when I checked out

www.gwbush.com

(the hilarious satire site) - it turned out that there was no satire to be seen as everyone was too busy supporting Kerry (doing the 4T thing that needs to be done)

so this sadly seems like a piece of evidence in favor of Crisis

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Unfortunately, when I checked out

www.gwbush.com

(the hilarious satire site) - it turned out that there was no satire to be seen as everyone was too busy supporting Kerry (doing the 4T thing that needs to be done)

so this sadly seems like a piece of evidence in favor of Crisis

There is definitely an intensity to this election that we have not seen in a long time. I can't remember one in my personal political awareness. I suspect we'd have to go back to 1972.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Unfortunately, when I checked out

www.gwbush.com

(the hilarious satire site) - it turned out that there was no satire to be seen as everyone was too busy supporting Kerry (doing the 4T thing that needs to be done)

so this sadly seems like a piece of evidence in favor of Crisis

There is definitely an intensity to this election that we have not seen in a long time. I can't remember one in my personal political awareness. I suspect we'd have to go back to 1972.

1980, Carter vs. Reagan, was the last time we saw this combination of intense, mean-spririted campaigning and electoral division. I don't think that's a coincidence...i still feel that the election of Reagan was the Catalyst for the Third Turning, not his "Morning In America" reelection campaign four years later.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Unfortunately, when I checked out

www.gwbush.com

(the hilarious satire site) - it turned out that there was no satire to be seen as everyone was too busy supporting Kerry (doing the 4T thing that needs to be done)

so this sadly seems like a piece of evidence in favor of Crisis

There is definitely an intensity to this election that we have not seen in a long time. I can't remember one in my personal political awareness. I suspect we'd have to go back to 1972.

1980, Carter vs. Reagan, was the last time we saw this combination of intense, mean-spririted campaigning and electoral division. I don't think that's a coincidence...i still feel that the election of Reagan was the Catalyst for the Third Turning, not his "Morning In America" reelection campaign four years later. So to me it makes perfect sense that this, the first Presidential Election of the Fourth Turning, would be similarly intense.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Unfortunately, when I checked out

www.gwbush.com

(the hilarious satire site) - it turned out that there was no satire to be seen as everyone was too busy supporting Kerry (doing the 4T thing that needs to be done)

so this sadly seems like a piece of evidence in favor of Crisis

There is definitely an intensity to this election that we have not seen in a long time. I can't remember one in my personal political awareness. I suspect we'd have to go back to 1972.

1980, Carter vs. Reagan, was the last time we saw this combination of intense, mean-spririted campaigning and electoral division. I don't think that's a coincidence...i still feel that the election of Reagan was the Catalyst for the Third Turning, not his "Morning In America" reelection campaign four years later.

You really think 1980 was this intense? Okay, I was only 12 but between my impression at the time and my impressions in retrospect with 1980 as "history" I don't get that impression.

Sure there were gas lines, hostages, dead helicopter pilots, stagflation, King Tut Funky Tut :wink: , and a lot of other tensors. But with GI's and Silent mostly running the show and with Boomer coming-of-age passion petering out, I don't see the intensity, and certainly not the childishness, that we see now.