Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

On a National level, I can easily envision a fracturing of America along Nine-Nations lines fifteen or twenty years out, forming a loose confederation for the purposes of continental defense only. The most obvious case, Dixie, has wanted to be its own country for the last 150 years...by the end of the Fourth Turning, I doubt whether the folks in New York City and Boston will care to stand in their way. They'll have too much to gain from being free of the Reds.

If the US did come apart in such a manner, I seriously doubt that the successor states would even hold together for continental defense. I'd have an easier time seeing New England and Megalopolis allied with Canada and Europe, Ecotopia allied with Canada and either Japan or China, Mexamerica (or Aztlan) allied with Mexico and either Japan or China, with only Dixie, the Granary (or Heartland) and the Empty Quarter (part of Heartland? Deseret?) coming together in anything resembling the continental defense alliance you speak of. As to how long that continental defense alliance could hold out, given the long list of enemies it would be facing, is anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by Harv

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

but none of this should be seen as the End of the American Dream.

Actually, I honestly believe that one of the major issues of the coming 4T will be the question of whether the United States as a political unit, and the American people as a nationality, have any right to exist - with much of the world's answer to that question being a resounding NO!!!!!, including some people right here in this country.

That sounds like a difficult crisis to overcome. Think we can do it?

I think we may have to - or suffer the consequences. As anyone who has followed my posts knows, I pretty much accept it as an unchangeable given that Americans are among the most two hated peoples on the planet (the other ethnicity in that category being - as usual :cry: - Jews).

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I'm not sure if this is a sign of 4T or not, but the Supreme Court has just ended the death penalty for minors.

Good!!!!

The Manhattan-based WSJ wrote a big boo hoo editorial about how Kennedy has imposed "blue state" values on the rest of the country by forbidding the executions of minors. They also mentioned gays in the retort.
Guess they really only have a plan A.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't know exactly where to put this, so her goes:

Let's assume this current war is about resources which I think it is, and if it is an attempt to control resources in a declining environment, which I think at least possible.

It also seems likely that many boomers are starting to see this as another 'Nam. What might happen if there is popular resistence to a war, which is about something other than what the resistors think it is about?

Does it even matter?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4308033.stm

Big Brother is knocking at the door...

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The Manhattan-based WSJ wrote a big boo hoo editorial about how Kennedy has imposed "blue state" values on the rest of the country by forbidding the executions of minors. They also mentioned gays in the retort.
Guess they really only have a plan A.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I personally believe that minors as young as 10 or 12 should be executed. I do believe kids young as that know what they did to deserve execution. I also believe that death sentence be compulsory for all first degree murder convictions, appeals short circuited and waiting times for executions cut to around 6 months or less.

We need to restore some sense of moral equity in the justice system, which means expanding capital punishment and introducing corporal punishment in schools and in the judicial system. There no reason why a country like Australia or USA not have a crime rate similar to Singapore.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The Manhattan-based WSJ wrote a big boo hoo editorial about how Kennedy has imposed "blue state" values on the rest of the country by forbidding the executions of minors. They also mentioned gays in the retort.
Guess they really only have a plan A.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I personally believe that minors as young as 10 or 12 should be executed. I do believe kids young as that know what they did to deserve execution. I also believe that death sentence be compulsory for all first degree murder convictions, appeals short circuited and waiting times for executions cut to around 6 months or less.

WHOA! Dude!

Originally Posted by Tristan

We need to restore some sense of moral equity in the justice system, which means expanding capital punishment and introducing corporal punishment in schools and in the judicial system. There no reason why a country like Australia or USA not have a crime rate similar to Singapore.

Personally, I'll take a bit of crime with a lot of freedom any day.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Let's assume this current war is about resources which I think it is, and if it is an attempt to control resources in a declining environment, which I think at least possible.

It also seems likely that many boomers are starting to see this as another 'Nam. What might happen if there is popular resistence to a war, which is about something other than what the resistors think it is about?

Does it even matter?

Yes, when one compares what is happening today in the Middle East to the collapse of the Soviet Union, one can easily see the potential "quagmire" that is becoming more and more obvious every day. The neocon attempt to raid these nations of their oil resources has backfired bigtime, as they seem to be embracing American liberalism instead. Women voting for freedom and liberty is obviously not what Bush had in mind when he illegally invaded Iraq. But now look at what is happening, the neocons are faced a very angry Arab Street seizing control and saying, "Hell no, we won't go!"

The solidarity of the American left with the freedom fighters in Iraq and Lebanon is what will ultimately undo the imperialist neocon Bush forces at home and abroad. The Democrats need to take proper credit for what is happening over there right now. The election of 2006 will probably see a massive turning out of the Republicans in Congress, followed by a re-alignment of the American political scene in 2008, ala 1930-32.

As one of the very popular posters, here, put it recently, "Damn Bush to hell." Pretty soon, it appears, that's exactly what is going to happen.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The Manhattan-based WSJ wrote a big boo hoo editorial about how Kennedy has imposed "blue state" values on the rest of the country by forbidding the executions of minors. They also mentioned gays in the retort.
Guess they really only have a plan A.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I personally believe that minors as young as 10 or 12 should be executed. I do believe kids young as that know what they did to deserve execution. I also believe that death sentence be compulsory for all first degree murder convictions, appeals short circuited and waiting times for executions cut to around 6 months or less.

WHOA! Dude!

Originally Posted by Tristan

We need to restore some sense of moral equity in the justice system, which means expanding capital punishment and introducing corporal punishment in schools and in the judicial system. There no reason why a country like Australia or USA not have a crime rate similar to Singapore.

Personally, I'll take a bit of crime with a lot of freedom any day.

No, executions should be reserved for adults convicted of violent crimes. Children aged ten or twelve may know the difference between right and wrong, and kids who commit crimes should certainly be held accountable for what they've done. However, as their brains aren't fully developed yet, they often act impulsively before being able to think through what those actions really mean...think about how many kids will dash out into a busy street to retrieve a soccer ball, and only think about the traffic after they've been run over by a Ford Explorer? So, no, I don't see killing them as the answer...perhaps we should consider jailing parents who raise kids that become violent felons? "A bit of crime" is not acceptable either.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The Manhattan-based WSJ wrote a big boo hoo editorial about how Kennedy has imposed "blue state" values on the rest of the country by forbidding the executions of minors. They also mentioned gays in the retort.
Guess they really only have a plan A.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I personally believe that minors as young as 10 or 12 should be executed. I do believe kids young as that know what they did to deserve execution. I also believe that death sentence be compulsory for all first degree murder convictions, appeals short circuited and waiting times for executions cut to around 6 months or less.

WHOA! Dude!

Originally Posted by Tristan

We need to restore some sense of moral equity in the justice system, which means expanding capital punishment and introducing corporal punishment in schools and in the judicial system. There no reason why a country like Australia or USA not have a crime rate similar to Singapore.

Personally, I'll take a bit of crime with a lot of freedom any day.

No, executions should be reserved for adults convicted of violent crimes. Children aged ten or twelve may know the difference between right and wrong, and kids who commit crimes should certainly be held accountable for what they've done. However, as their brains aren't fully developed yet, they often act impulsively before being able to think through what those actions really mean...think about how many kids will dash out into a busy street to retrieve a soccer ball, and only think about the traffic after they've been run over by a Ford Explorer? So, no, I don't see killing them as the answer...perhaps we should consider jailing parents who raise kids that become violent felons? "A bit of crime" is not acceptable either.

Would you prefer Singapore - which was Tristan's preferred option? IMO, a totally obedient populous is a symptom of real problems in a society. Perhaps a better choice is to decriminalize some behavior and agressively pursue and punish those that violate what remains illegal.

That said, I don't think anyone thinks killing is OK, even when it's due to negligence rather than intent.

One of the guests on C-Span this morning is working to prevent 16-year-olds from getting driver licenses. He was showing stats that 75% of them have accidents. Pre-teen brain scans (12-year-olds?) were shown as examples of brains with undeveloped areas for making judgements VS scans for those in their late 20's who are finally fully developed. The accident statistics improved at 18 and more so by mid-20's. If 16 year-olds haven't good enough judgement to drive a car then the death penalty does indeed seem to be cruel and unusual punishment. After all, it took our President until he was 40 to take responsibility for his own actions.

Originally Posted by MaryT

One of the guests on C-Span this morning is working to prevent 16-year-olds from getting driver licenses. He was showing stats that 75% of them have accidents. Pre-teen brain scans (12-year-olds?) were shown as examples of brains with undeveloped areas for making judgements VS scans for those in their late 20's who are finally fully developed. The accident statistics improved at 18 and more so by mid-20's. If 16 year-olds haven't good enough judgement to drive a car then the death penalty does indeed seem to be cruel and unusual punishment. After all, it took our President until he was 40 to take responsibility for his own actions.

I have to agree with this. Until the brain is "finally fully developed," in the late twenties, people ought not be allowed to vote, consume beer, drive a car, have sex, make an abortion choice, win the lottery, or even work for anything more that minimum wage. Until that time when the brain is "finally fully developed" we, as a society, can ill afford the dangers posed by these echo-boom kids. In fact, we ought not be letting them join the military either.

Essentially, until that brain is "finally fully developed," society ought to demand these mental midgets to stay home, maintain strict curfews, while attending school and sensitivity training. There is a proper time when a baby is weened, there ought to be a proper time when a child can adequately assume an adult role.

Until the brain is "finally fully developed," those "persons" are unable to handle that responsibility and consequences of their actions.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Meet the Paris Hilton of our favorite featured fourth:

• 

Her caption read: "Brenda Frazier - Popular debutante and spoiled rich girl who regularly made the papers for a variety of romps which illustrated how well some segments of society were living while others starved."

Well, it looks like Miss Frazier is being shamed for her behavior, which is not what happens today with the media coverage of Miss Hilton, which might poke fun at her - or be sympathetic, as with the recent story of the hacked cell phone. Perhaps Millie spoled brats who follow in Hilton's footsteps can expect the same shame treatment, and no more indulgence.

that's an interesting caption. Life was not a liberal mag, but it's a class warfare quote, showing how generally those sentiments were held at the height of the depression...

That's exactly right, Professor. The whole Stork Club "cafe' society" mentality -- the "celebutante" as Winchell called them -- was a J. Edgar Hoover gig, with conservatives like Henry Luce and Orson Wells et al in toto.

It appears the "celebutante" is making a fine comeback:

• 

Are we 3T or 4T? Is this new celebutante gig a Karl Rovian plot to ruin the left via a pollution of the young gal's body and soul?

You decide... 8)

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The Manhattan-based WSJ wrote a big boo hoo editorial about how Kennedy has imposed "blue state" values on the rest of the country by forbidding the executions of minors. They also mentioned gays in the retort.
Guess they really only have a plan A.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I personally believe that minors as young as 10 or 12 should be executed. I do believe kids young as that know what they did to deserve execution. I also believe that death sentence be compulsory for all first degree murder convictions, appeals short circuited and waiting times for executions cut to around 6 months or less.

WHOA! Dude!

Originally Posted by Tristan

We need to restore some sense of moral equity in the justice system, which means expanding capital punishment and introducing corporal punishment in schools and in the judicial system. There no reason why a country like Australia or USA not have a crime rate similar to Singapore.

Personally, I'll take a bit of crime with a lot of freedom any day.

No, executions should be reserved for adults convicted of violent crimes. Children aged ten or twelve may know the difference between right and wrong, and kids who commit crimes should certainly be held accountable for what they've done. However, as their brains aren't fully developed yet, they often act impulsively before being able to think through what those actions really mean...think about how many kids will dash out into a busy street to retrieve a soccer ball, and only think about the traffic after they've been run over by a Ford Explorer? So, no, I don't see killing them as the answer...perhaps we should consider jailing parents who raise kids that become violent felons? "A bit of crime" is not acceptable either.

Would you prefer Singapore - which was Tristan's preferred option? IMO, a totally obedient populous is a symptom of real problems in a society. Perhaps a better choice is to decriminalize some behavior and agressively pursue and punish those that violate what remains illegal.

That said, I don't think anyone thinks killing is OK, even when it's due to negligence rather than intent.

Meaning would i prefer that we start lashing folks for sticking chewing gum under the seats at theaters??? What do you think?

Nor could I care less if marijuana is decriminalized or not...it simply doesn't affect me since I wouldn't touch the stuff regardless.

I do have a problem with going lightly on those who think it's ok to assault, rape and murder people. I also have a big problem with those who feel it's acceptable to rob their neighbors' homes and thus destroy their very sense of security and sanctuary. These people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In these areas I can and do expect a completely and totally obedient society...violent criminal behaviour should not be tolerated even "a little bit". Because when you do, what you end up with is...

Newark.

I have to agree with this. Until the brain is "finally fully developed," in the late twenties, people ought not be allowed to vote, consume beer, drive a car, have sex, make an abortion choice, win the lottery, or even work for anything more that minimum wage.

So if they aren't mature enough to make an abortion choice, they are mature enough to raise a child??? :shock:

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

I have to agree with this. Until the brain is "finally fully developed," in the late twenties, people ought not be allowed to vote, consume beer, drive a car, have sex, make an abortion choice, win the lottery, or even work for anything more that minimum wage.

So if they aren't mature enough to make an abortion choice, they are mature enough to raise a child??? :shock:

This is Marc Lamb talking of course, so whenever he says something (especially when hyperbole is used), there's always the distinct possibility that he means exactly the opposite...

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

I have to agree with this. Until the brain is "finally fully developed," in the late twenties, people ought not be allowed to vote, consume beer, drive a car, have sex, make an abortion choice, win the lottery, or even work for anything more that minimum wage.

So if they aren't mature enough to make an abortion choice, they are mature enough to raise a child??? :shock:

This is Marc Lamb talking of course, so whenever he says something (especially when hyperbole is used), there's always the distinct possibility that he means exactly the opposite...

And Lamb would no doubt never sign such a waiver, even if his offspring fell prey to the lecherous hands of Michael Dukakis. :wink:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20050307.shtml

A friend notes that March 4, 2005, the day on which this is written, is exactly 72 years to the day later than the day on which Franklin Roosevelt took office as president and assured Americans that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Exactly 72 years before that, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office and appealed to "the mystic chords of memory." Seventy-two years before that, George Washington took the oath of office as the new nation's first president.

Lincoln began his address at Gettysburg with the words, "Four score and seven years ago" -- a reminder that the span of time between the great battle and the Declaration of Independence was not much more than the biblical lifespan of "three score and ten." We stand today one lifetime away from Franklin Roosevelt, two lifetimes from Abraham Lincoln, only three lifetimes away from George Washington.

Originally Posted by Opusaug

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050307.shtml

A friend notes that March 4, 2005, the day on which this is written, is exactly 72 years to the day later than the day on which Franklin Roosevelt took office as president and assured Americans that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Exactly 72 years before that, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office and appealed to "the mystic chords of memory." Seventy-two years before that, George Washington took the oath of office as the new nation's first president.

Lincoln began his address at Gettysburg with the words, "Four score and seven years ago" -- a reminder that the span of time between the great battle and the Declaration of Independence was not much more than the biblical lifespan of "three score and ten." We stand today one lifetime away from Franklin Roosevelt, two lifetimes from Abraham Lincoln, only three lifetimes away from George Washington.

Hey Blowhard! How are you doing? :wink:

It's also interesting that one human lifetime also each separates George W. Bush, Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan, George III, and James II. 8)

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Opusaug

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050307.shtml

A friend notes that March 4, 2005, the day on which this is written, is exactly 72 years to the day later than the day on which Franklin Roosevelt took office as president and assured Americans that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Exactly 72 years before that, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office and appealed to "the mystic chords of memory." Seventy-two years before that, George Washington took the oath of office as the new nation's first president.

Lincoln began his address at Gettysburg with the words, "Four score and seven years ago" -- a reminder that the span of time between the great battle and the Declaration of Independence was not much more than the biblical lifespan of "three score and ten." We stand today one lifetime away from Franklin Roosevelt, two lifetimes from Abraham Lincoln, only three lifetimes away from George Washington.

Hey Blowhard! How are you doing? :wink:

It's also interesting that one human lifetime also each separates George W. Bush, Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan, George III, and James II. 8)

Interesting that the columnist at that site is thinking in generational terms.
I think that ole' W is more like the bunch Peter lists than he is a George Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt. He is much nearer to the beginning of this 4th turning than he is to the end (and we are still unsure about that beginning). His actions certainly have much to do with the ongoing precipitation of the crisis, but are surely not at the dicisive climax of it.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Hey Blowhard! How are you doing? :wink:

It's good to know I'm loved.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Hey Blowhard! How are you doing? :wink:

It's good to know I'm loved.

I wouldn't go that far. :lol:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0307-25.htm
Bankruptcy to get harder for poor.

Has anyone here actually read all 354 pages of posts on this thread? Do they cover the topic question by and large or is this basically a free for all post anything thread?

Well, it's supposed to be for any evidence of what Turning we are in, so that sort of makes it a catch-all for "signs" (one way or another" that don't quite "fit" somewhere else. I dunno, maybe a few fanatics have actually read all of them :shrug: