Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

PB, if you were to pull your head out, so to speak, and pay attention or look closely at the arguments, debates and fundamental clashes being waged with certain posters who are often the recipients of a "so-called liberal" label or tag. You would've have observed a strict Right libertarian defending the individual rights of people, the principles or commandments as you pointed out above from people who portray themselves as being liberals.

Your so-called defense is to define liberals as being nothing more than Bush haters, a meme intended to discount any argument put forth as being nothing but derived from irrational emotion. It was just one of the more recent ploys of constantly banging away at the proud heritage of liberalism and progressive thought by the right-wing elites in this country and their blinded dittoheads. It sort of worked up until 2006 or so, but it doesn't work any more -- check the polls, bro. Your continued use of it is tolerated but I'm sure it’s becoming a little embarrassing to the more quick-witted of your ilk on this forum. You may want to go into seclusion and listen 24/7 to Rush, Hannity et al for a few weeks and get more up-to-date on the latest memes for liberal bashing or perhaps request some instructive PMs (sounds like bowel movements) from your more astute party leaders here on the forum.

Originally Posted by zilch

Hey, and you forgot to mention the liberal LBJ's massive tax cuts for the rich and his murdering millions of "gooks" while slaughtering 50,000 junior members of U.S.A.'s vast military industrial complex. Or conservative Richard Nixon's implementing Earth Day, EPA, OSHA, RCRA, imposing wage and price controls, indexing Social Security for inflation, and creating Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Hey, the ultra-conservative fascist Nixon even advocated gun control and eradicated the last remnants of the gold standard, too!

So, you're coming around to agree with me that it is sophmoric to make big sweeping assertions such as "Liberals maximize Big Government" (or even that only Conservatives can undertake stupid wars). Life is a little too complicated. So perhaps your posts could become a little more nuanced?

Originally Posted by zilch

p.s. What I'd like to see is a fourthturning version of trends in federal debt, deficit spending, federal tax reciepts, military spending, as a % on the GDP, etc... That 4T report would run from the day of creation (FDR's 1933 New Deal) to the present (including the 20 years Democrats held the White House and forty years they held the nation's purse strings. All told, from 1933 to 1994).

Well, hell, these arguments have been going on for some time longer than that. Why don't we go back to Julius Caesar’s time or perhaps farther to the Ancient Greeks, or maybe some Old Testament might be instructive? Then we can talk about justifications like war and then whether those wars were justified.
... Where do you get the time?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Interesting. You sound a lot like typical Clinton critics, when they talk about HIS response to terrorism in the past. Maybe the truth of the matter is that Osama hasn't really caused us enough pain to get seriously motivated to kick his ass ... yet.

Bullshit, Osama caused plenty enough pain; it's just we have incompetents running the show that are more interested in looking tough than being tough AND effective. All Americans aren't stupid all of time, and as the polls show we're not interested any more in this apathy excuse or any other lame excuse you turds have to offer.

Try doing some reading instead of just the usual snarky reacting. You'll find that the Bushies dropped the ball when they refused to accept Clinton's number one transition priority - al Qaeda. --- along with their stonewalling Richard Clarke up until just days before 9/11.

Along with getting a boyfriend, maybe being a little more informed might do some wonders for your nihilism.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So, you're coming around to agree with me... ?

Hardly.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, hell, these arguments have been going on for some time longer than that.

Why are you intent on turning a history website into just another partisan Democrat Underground or Daily Kos?

Originally Posted by zilch

Why are you intent on turning a history website into just another partisan Democrat Underground or Daily Kos?

Because I see you as my idol? I want to be so much like you!

If you stop, I'll consider doing so as well.

With the one caveat that I can still diagnose Rani and offer her helpful prescriptions. Oh, and I get to point out when KIA is being a kook and HC68 is bending the truth.

Deal?

Feudalism worked a hell of a lot better than today's utterly corrupt representaivte-of-the-political-class government. Aristocracy and monarchy are the best forms of government, as they are run by ordinary people who generally have few to no ambitions.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Because I see you as my idol? I want to be so much like you!

Well, here, let's take a look and see how yer doin', k? Here's a pretty good sampling from your last three posts:

The "current monkey in the White House," and his "Bushies," are "incompetents running the show" with a "con job" you "sophmoric" "turds" support with your "usual snarky reacting."

Gee, and to think, I'm to blame for all that!

Originally Posted by playwrite

If you stop, I'll consider doing so as well.

Deal?

Ah, yes, playing the "victim card," always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Originally Posted by zilch

Well, here, let's take a look and see how yer doin', k? Here's a pretty good sampling from your last three posts:

The "current monkey in the White House," and his "Bushies," are "incompetents running the show" with a "con job" you "sophmoric" "turds" support with your "usual snarky reacting."

Gee, and to think, I'm to blame for all that!


Ah, yes, playing the "victim card," always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Well, it doesn't quite meet the standard of sux, sux, sux discourse that you achieved, but some of it, I will admit, is in the ballpark. And it does fill me heart with pride that the Master has given me some recognition!

However, my offer stands? And I willing to negotiate at least at the margins!

Oh, and regarding "victim," and to play on those famous words -

I'm not a victim, I make victims.

- now that's got to appeal to the Master's dark heart, no?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

That is the real difference between liberals and the authoritarian thugs who besmirch the name of conservatism.

One would think, posting at a website wherein application of "history" to the present-day is it's dominate theme, at least some degree of weight given to the past would be paramount among the site's posters. One, of course, would be wrong.

Especially here at the fourthturning.com.

Reminding present-day Democrats of their party's historical roots is simply a no no, and will quickly result in the memory-borne poster being placed on the their notorious "Ignore List." Which makes a lot of sense, I mean, who wants to hear about Democrats long Southern roots, it's intense and bloodly defense of human bondage and slavery, of it's horrific sub-human legacy of death in places like the Andersonville, Belleau Wood, Dresden and Hiroshima, of it's freedom-crushing Sedition, Espionage and Sabotage Acts, of it's imprisoning hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in concentration camps, of even of their more recent stedfast support of wholesale lynching and months-long senate filibusters against Civil Rights laws just forty years ago?

Thuggery? The legacy of the Democrat Party is fully immersed in proud, unabashed thuggery! Which, I guess, in their simpleton minds, give present-day Democrats every reason to self-righteously critique errant "conservatives" as "thugs."

Conclusion: For Democrat posters here at the fourthturning.com, history is simply a distraction to the present:

FDR is not today's POTUS; Richard Nixon is not today's POTUS; Bill Clinton is not today's POTUS. George Bush is today's POTUS, and we need to deal with the consequences of what his adminstration has done and what it is doing RIGHT HERE AND NOW, and not get distracted by comparisons to [the] past. --Child of Socrates, Democratic Party thread, December, 2003

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, it doesn't quite meet the standard of sux, sux, sux discourse that you achieved...

Dude, clearly illuminating absurdity ad infinitum with ad infinitum absurdity is no vice!

Originally Posted by zilch

Reminding present-day Democrats of their party's historical roots is simply a no no, and will quickly result in the memory-borne poster being placed on the their notorious "Ignore List." Which makes a lot of sense, I mean, who wants to hear about Democrats long Southern roots, it's intense and bloodly defense of human bondage and slavery, of it's horrific sub-human legacy of death in places like the Andersonville, Belleau Wood, Dresden and Hiroshima, of it's freedom-crushing Sedition, Espionage and Sabotage Acts, of it's imprisoning hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in concentration camps, of even of their more recent stedfast support of wholesale lynching and months-long senate filibusters against Civil Rights laws just forty years ago?

Prior to World War II, both parties were essentially isolationist, with some Republican leaning towards favoring fascism and some Democratic leaning towards favoring communism. Shortly after World War II, both parties followed the Grey Champion towards a Superpower containment policy. Going into the next crisis, the Republicans seem to be leaning towards unilateral preemptive invasion and an aggressive war on terror, while the Democrats are leaning towards peacekeeping and more international cooperation. Still, I would not be surprised if the eventual 4T foreign affairs platform has not yet been created.

Prior to the 60s civil rights movement, the Democrats held the south and its dubious racial baggage. Since the 60s, the Democrats have embraced the Blue Awakening civil rights and equality values while the Republicans are fighting a more subtle rear guard action as the old openly racist values must be hidden these days.

Every 2nd and 4th turnings I expect major shifts in party platforms. The progressive party will be more aware of the problems facing the country and will propose something new. The conservative party will be happy with the way thing are, and will try to maintain the status quo established by the progressive party in earlier crises.

So, yes, the progressive parties of generations past were not as progressive as today's progressives. It is easy to predict that the progressives of 2 or 4 generations hence will not judge today's progressives well, either.

But I doubt they will judge the pro-torture, pro zones of influence, anti Bill of Rights conservatives of today overly favorably, either. Today's conservatives are even less progressive than today's progressives.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Prior to the 60s civil rights movement, the Democrats held the south and its dubious racial baggage.

It's dubious racial baggage? Hey, cut 'em some slack, Butler, at least those lynch-happy Democrat slave masters weren't as bad as today's waterboardin' Republicans!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But I doubt they will judge the pro-torture, pro zones of influence, anti Bill of Rights conservatives of today overly favorably, either.

Bingo, man. There ya go!

Originally Posted by zilch

Which makes a lot of sense, I mean, who wants to hear about Democrats long Southern roots, it's intense and bloodly defense of human bondage and slavery, of it's horrific sub-human legacy of death in places like the Andersonville, Belleau Wood, Dresden and Hiroshima, of it's freedom-crushing Sedition, Espionage and Sabotage Acts, of it's imprisoning hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in concentration camps, of even of their more recent stedfast support of wholesale lynching and months-long senate fillibusters against Civil Rights laws just forty years ago?

Lincoln tells a story of how the parties changed coats.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.silkpagoda.com/dvdlist/acromax/7linc.pdf]Abraham Lincoln[/url]

"I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engaged in a fight, with their greatcoats on, which fight, after a long and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat and into that of the other! If the two leading parties of to−day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men."−−(Letter declining a Jefferson banquet invitation, Springfield, Illinois, April 6, 1859.)

Over the last half century, the Democratic and Republican parties have changed coats just as Lincoln described. Whereas once the Democratic party was the party of the South and the GOP the Northeast, the situation is reversed today.

Once the Republican party had a sizable progressive wing who ruled the party at times (1861-68 and 1901-1912). The ideological descendents of the Radical Republicans and the LaFollette Progressives are mostly Democrats today. My own family shows this exodus. My grandfather was a staunch Republican who hated FDR. Both my parents voted Republican in the 1950's and 1960's, switched in the 1970's, and have voted Democratic ever since. All my siblings are Democrats.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eh, that depends on how it all turns out, and what kind of "progress" people are looking for. After all, the winners write the history books.

That's been my point. The progressives generally prevail in 4T's, but how progressive is defined is usually the faction that wins.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Lincoln tells a story of how the parties changed coats.

What I think this means is that Republicans will probably dominate this 4T, while featuring black gays enmass being chained and dragged around by gun-toting SUVs, unless the you former pro-lynching Democrats can stop us.

The New York Review of books the 20 December 2007 number
'Iraq: The Hidden Human Costs' by Mr. Michael Massing in which he considers:

One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer by Nathaniel Fick

Generation Kill: Devil Dogs, Iceman, Captain America, and the New Face of American War by Evan Wright and others.

Originally Posted by Mr. Michael Massing on Mr. Evan Wright's work

Wright is no less unsparing in describing the backgrounds of the Marines. This is a sensitive topic, with few journalists willing to look too deeply into the composition of the all-volunteer army. Wright has no such qualms. "Culturally," he writes, "these Marines would be virtually unrecognizable to their forebears in the 'Greatest Generation.' They are kids raised on hip-hop, Marilyn Manson and Jerry Springer." There are "former gangbangers, a sprinkling of born-again Christians and quite a few guys who before entering the Corps were daily dope smokers." While some joined the Marines out of prep school or turned down scholarships at universities, more than half "come from broken homes and were raised by absentee, single, working parents. Many are on more intimate terms with video games, reality TV shows and Internet porn than they are with their own parents." Together, he writes, these Marines "represent what is more or less America's first generation of disposable children."


While shocked at times at their childish behavior, Wright is also impressed by their fighters' ethos. Most seem driven by "an almost reckless desire to test themselves in the most extreme circumstances." The life they have chosen seems in many ways

a complete rejection of the hyped, consumerist American dream as it is dished out in reality TV shows and pop-song lyrics.... Their highest aspiration is self-sacrifice over self-preservation.

This sounds idealistic, but, as Wright is quick to note, "the whole point of their training is to commit the ultimate taboo: to kill. Their culture revels in this." At the end of team briefings, "Marines put their hands together and shout, 'Kill!'"

...Wright did elaborate on this in an interview he gave soon after his book appeared.[*] "For the past decade," he said,

we've been steeped in the lore of The Greatest Generation, the title of Tom Brokaw's book about the men who fought World War II, and a lot of people have developed this romanticism about that war. They tend to remember it from the Life magazine images of the sailor coming home and kissing his fiancée. They've forgotten that war is about killing. I really think it's important as a society to be reminded of this, because you now have a generation of baby boomers, a lot of whom didn't serve in Viet Nam. Many of them protested it. But now they're grown up, and as they've gotten older I think many of them have grown tired of the ambiguities and the lack of moral clarity of Viet Nam, and they've started to cling to this myth of World War II, the good war.

I never read Tom Brokaw's book, but if you go back and look at the actual greatest generation writers, people like Kurt Vonnegut—who wrote Slaughterhouse Five—and Joseph Heller, Norman Mailer, and their contemporaries, who actually fought in World War II and wrote about it, there's no romance at all. In fact, a lot of their work is very anti-war.

His book, Wright added, "goes into how soldiers kill civilians, they wound civilians." In Iraq, the shooting of civilians

was justified in the sense that there were some civilian buses that had Fedayeen fighters in them.... But when you see a little girl in pretty clothes that someone dressed her in, and she's smushed on the road with her legs cut off, you don't think, well you know there were Fedayeen nearby and this is collateral damage.

Overall, Wright said, "the problem with American society is we don't really understand what war is." The view Americans get "is too sanitized."

Note there is some bad language concerning the Romantic Idealist-in-Chief's propensity toward vacuity by a fellow (real) Texan... Progressives be forewarned!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eh, that depends on how it all turns out, and what kind of "progress" people are looking for. After all, the winners write the history books.

Good and evil are not all that hard to differentiate. Autocratic government or democracy? Slavery or the Bill of Rights? Universal conquest or defensive alliance? Ever increasing boom bust economic cycles, or regulated stability? Depleted resources and an unlivable environment, or prudent management of the environment?

In any given crisis, the greater problems will be addressed and resolved. This time around, we have lots of issues, many of which are entangled with one another. It is not absolutely clear which will be the central issues, which will be secondary issues receiving somewhat less attention, and which issues will be put off another two or four generations.

I do expect those who profit most from the status quo to remain morally blind. The Establishment will attempt to maintain power. That's the way it is.

But problems will be solved, injustices righted, and those who stood in the way of change will be judged. That too is the way it is.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Once the Republican party had a sizable progressive wing who ruled the party at times (1861-68 and 1901-1912). The ideological descendents of the Radical Republicans and the LaFollette Progressives are mostly Democrats today. My own family shows this exodus. My grandfather was a staunch Republican who hated FDR. Both my parents voted Republican in the 1950's and 1960's, switched in the 1970's, and have voted Democratic ever since. All my siblings are Democrats.

This sounds very familiar, except that my siblings switched in the mid to late 80s, my mom a little later than that, and my dad, the John Wayne fan, switched in the 90s. I ran late and didn't start the changeover until 2000 and only completed it in 2004.

Originally Posted by zilch

Dude, clearly illuminating absurdity ad infinitum with ad infinitum absurdity is no vice!

So, the play continues!

With you as the straight man who poses the absurdity (e.g. liberals of today were the slave owners of yesterday) that brings forth profound or wonderful insights from others (e.g. Alexander's relevant quote from Lincoln pertaining to the exchange of coats!). But rather than demonstrate any illumination, you patter on, while fending continued clueless’ness, towards the next absurdity, and so it goes on and on, ad infinitum!

You do have a wonderful role to play!

And you are accompanied by a well-rehearsed soubrette who constantly teases us with various versions of moral relativism that, while itself never rises above sophistry, continues to cause the banging of heads, the mashing of teeth and the occasional insight from others that there are things that do matter (e.g. Butler's succinct review of good and evil)!

And just as the drama might turn a little dull or repetitive, your duet is facilitated by a chorus of merry men offering up homespun un-wisdom!

It's not a forum, it’s an opera!

Perhaps a comedy on its surface, but the reactions you and your cabal occasionally evoke from the remaining troupe sometimes provides wonderful insight and meaning!

Cheers to the straight man, his coterie, and their esprit de corps!

The show goes on!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Your so-called defense is to define liberals as being nothing more than Bush haters, a meme intended to discount any argument put forth as being nothing but derived from irrational emotion. It was just one of the more recent ploys of constantly banging away at the proud heritage of liberalism and progressive thought by the right-wing elites in this country and their blinded dittoheads. It sort of worked up until 2006 or so, but it doesn't work any more -- check the polls, bro. Your continued use of it is tolerated but I'm sure it’s becoming a little embarrassing to the more quick-witted of your ilk on this forum. You may want to go into seclusion and listen 24/7 to Rush, Hannity et al for a few weeks and get more up-to-date on the latest memes for liberal bashing or perhaps request some instructive PMs (sounds like bowel movements) from your more astute party leaders here on the forum.

HC hasn't been around much to whip up the troops. At least his sophistry had some quality to it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

With you as the straight man who poses the absurdity (e.g. liberals of today were the slave owners of yesterday) that brings forth profound or wonderful insights from others (e.g. Alexander's relevant quote from Lincoln pertaining to the exchange of coats!).

Hmm, I guess I didn't get the profound "coat" relevance (other than the GOP is now the lynching party). Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The New York Review of books the 20 December 2007 number
'Iraq: The Hidden Human Costs' by Mr. Michael Massing in which he considers:

One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer by Nathaniel Fick

Generation Kill: Devil Dogs, Iceman, Captain America, and the New Face of American War by Evan Wright and others.




Note there is some bad language concerning the Romantic Idealist-in-Chief's propensity toward vacuity by a fellow (real) Texan... Progressives be forewarned!

Mr. Wright's book looks like a good read, Mr. Saari. I appreciate the heads-up.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Now Bob, I'm definitely not the history expert on this forum. In fact, I'm still in preschool on the subject, while most of you guys have Ph.D.s. But I do know enough to realize that there are always two sides to an issue, and what is a "justice" to one person is an "injustice" to another. Before you let yourself get carried away with your visions of nirvana, keep in mind that we really have no idea what will be seen as "right" or "wrong" about anything that we are doing 100 years from now. Do you think that George Washington thought that he would end up being plastered all over our money? Since they were so anti-monarchy back then, the thought might very well have made him puke!

"Do your worst! None can penetrate my Shield of Neutrality!!"

Originally Posted by zilch

psst... the dirty little secret is that we've been kickin' the living sh-t out of osama's terrorist troops ever since 9/11. but we citizens don't get to see much boom boom, hence no parades and rah rah.

Interesting view of things, since we now have opium production at record levels, the Kabul government in control of about half the country, and the warlords and the Taliban divvying up the rest. Real success there.

Originally Posted by zilch

Hmm, I guess I didn't get the profound "coat" relevance (other than the GOP is now the lynching party). Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Ah, the "remaining clueless" characteristic -- gosh, you sure play it well. But, does your choosing the "profound" rather than the "wondrous" give your game away?