Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Liberalism existed before Dubya; it will exist long after Dubya is gone. Liberalism no more upon contempt of Dubya than sobriety depends upon contempt for drunkenness. Dubya is simply the most illiberal President that any living American could know, a stooge for people dripping with contempt for any but their wealthy, privileged, corrupt selves.

"Freeman"? I've seen that word in use. Is it these?

I didn't claim to be a " Montana Freemen". Although, based on the info, I would probably agree with them in principle on several issues. I claimed to be a freeman. I should've just used free man. However, I was communicating in liberal terms (freeman was a term used in a liberal definition presented to me) at the time.

thanks again, COS

"false alarm people...turns out the liberals are not at the door to kill your children"

Originally Posted by 13rian

thanks again, COS

"false alarm people...turns out the liberals are not at the door to kill your children"

Exactly. My husband and I made a rational, educated decision to have two kids and stop there. We balanced our personal desire for a family with what we saw as the economic and environmentally responsible position.

If one wants to complain about the Chinese -- well, their political history is just about as autocratic as it gets. It doesn't surprise me that they've used coercive tactics. I suspect that as China pulls more into the capitalistic mainstream, their politics will eventually follow; not that I expect to see an exact duplicate of the Western style.

ZPG is a concept trumped up by well to do westerners who suffer the dual dilusions that A) humankind is the top of the food chain and, B) that we're smart enough to engineer the demise of the planet by over feeding, over populating our own kind.

ZPG is best kept as idle chit chat at whine and cheezit parties.

Rest assured, there are natural limiting factors that serve to reduce the population of any species that gets out of hand. These natural limiting factors will come in to play when any population reaches an unsustainable levels.

They are tried and true. They are unstoppable. They are the law.

We like all our fellow creatures are subject to the law.

We are not the top of the food chain. Bacteria and virus occupy that coveted slot.

We will not overpopulate and destroy the world. Rather, we are likely to overpopulate and destroy our place in the world.

Dem's da breaks!!

Originally Posted by Skabungus

We like all our fellow creatures are subject to the law.

We are not the top of the food chain. Bacteria and virus occupy that coveted slot.

We will not overpopulate and destroy the world. Rather, we are likely to overpopulate and destroy our place in the world.

Wow, that's really deep, man. Surely you libs are gonna save us from our rotten selves, again, right? Oh, wow, man, I sure hope so. What's freedom and liberty, worth, man, if, like, man, we're all dead, man. Wow, that's a heavy thot, huh, dude? Oh, wow. Like, no wonder you libs are basket-cases, like Gallup sez, huh, man?

Skabungus wrote:
ZPG is a concept trumped up by well to do westerners who suffer the dual dilusions that A) humankind is the top of the food chain and, B) that we're smart enough to engineer the demise of the planet by over feeding, over populating our own kind.ZPG is best kept as idle chit chat at whine and cheezit parties. Rest assured, there are natural limiting factors that serve to reduce the population of any species that gets out of hand. These natural limiting factors will come in to play when any population reaches an unsustainable levels.They are tried and true. They are unstoppable. They are the law. We like all our fellow creatures are subject to the law.
We are not the top of the food chain. Bacteria and virus occupy that coveted slot. We will not overpopulate and destroy the world. Rather, we are likely to overpopulate and destroy our place in the world.
Dem's da breaks!!

I'd add fungi to the list. Anyhow it's a little more complicated than that.
Most bacteria and fungi have more of a symbiotic relationship. In fact we're walking petri dishes. Each human has more bacteria cells than human ones. As for ZPG, yup, there's a limit called "carrying capcity".

Originally Posted by zilch

Wow, that's really deep, man. Surely you libs are gonna save us from our rotten selves, again, right? Oh, wow, man, I sure hope so. What's freedom and liberty, worth, man, if, like, man, we're all dead, man. Wow, that's a heavy thot, huh, dude? Oh, wow. Like, no wonder you libs are basket-cases, like Gallup sez, huh, man?

Umm I fail to see how basic laws of physics and biology are "liberal" or "conservative".

Zilch also wrote:
"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped... You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder we were ready to surrender. It was the same at the battle of Tet. You defeated us. We knew it. We thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice that your media was definitely helping us." General Vo Nguyen Giap, TET+forty

The above is what you get when there are no Nomads around to provide clarity. If you're going to do a war, then first make sure it's worth fighting and leave no weapons or tactics off the table. I'm guessing you don't want a bunch of first wave X'ers going for the jugular with 4th generation nukes do you ?

Originally Posted by The Rani

You have therefore exceeded the pb limit. Guess you needed a little more eddicatin'.

Two is enough, and enough people fall short of that that we should have no problem with achieving ZPG in the more advanced parts of the world.

The Chinese methods are drastic -- lots of compulsory abortions and harsh disincentives. There might be some laxity in that a couple that has a severely handicapped child gets another chance.... but China was in a drastic situation, one in which China was headed toward a population of 2 billion or something to that effect. Consider the catastrophe; it would have been a pretext for aggressive war for the Chinese equivalent of Lebensraum.

In the West the choices are more strictly economic -- choices of hedonism as opposed to large families. At some point parents might decide between a second car or a more 'grand' one, a nicer house, a dream vacation, or college education for the existing child. Maybe they are more harshly economic in China and would be even without the governmental coercion.

But that said, overpopulation means something nasty in America -- more unemployment and underemployment, more strip malls and box stores, longer commutes, higher real estate prices, higher school taxes...

Originally Posted by zilch

Wow, that's really deep, man. Surely you libs are gonna save us from our rotten selves, again, right? Oh, wow, man, I sure hope so. What's freedom and liberty, worth, man, if, like, man, we're all dead, man. Wow, that's a heavy thot, huh, dude? Oh, wow. Like, no wonder you libs are basket-cases, like Gallup sez, huh, man?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

You really are an idiot!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Two is enough, and enough people fall short of that that we should have no problem with achieving ZPG in the more advanced parts of the world.

Well, two were enough for me (though sometimes I think it might have been cool to have another one if we'd had the space, the energy, and the pocketbook).

Anyway, if you're shooting for ZPG, wouldn't the average have to be slightly more than two kids per couple? You'd have to account for premature deaths, people who choose not to reproduce, and those who are infertile.

The Chinese methods are drastic -- lots of compulsory abortions and harsh disincentives. There might be some laxity in that a couple that has a severely handicapped child gets another chance.... but China was in a drastic situation, one in which China was headed toward a population of 2 billion or something to that effect. Consider the catastrophe; it would have been a pretext for aggressive war for the Chinese equivalent of Lebensraum.

I suppose that's possible. Doesn't mean I like the methods, however.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Well, two were enough for me (though sometimes I think it might have been cool to have another one if we'd had the space, the energy, and the pocketbook).

Anyway, if you're shooting for ZPG, wouldn't the average have to be slightly more than two kids per couple? You'd have to account for premature deaths, people who choose not to reproduce, and those who are infertile.

Of course. As I understand, 2.1 children is the replacement level. Nobody has 2.1 children. One of the most prominent and vocal opponents is the Roman Catholic Church, which prefers large families because a large family might be 'proud' to dedicate a son to the Priesthood and a daughter to the Sisterhood...

I suppose that's possible. Doesn't mean I like the methods, however.

I don't like the Chinese methods, but the circumstances were even more abominable.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Exactly. My husband and I made a rational, educated decision to have two kids and stop there. We balanced our personal desire for a family with what we saw as the economic and environmentally responsible position.

If one wants to complain about the Chinese -- well, their political history is just about as autocratic as it gets. It doesn't surprise me that they've used coercive tactics. I suspect that as China pulls more into the capitalistic mainstream, their politics will eventually follow; not that I expect to see an exact duplicate of the Western style.

Chinese?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/op...ts&oref=slogin

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Chinese?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/op...ts&oref=slogin

Appreciate the alternate view.

And are you back for good?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Originally Posted by The Rani

You have therefore exceeded the pb limit. Guess you needed a little more eddicatin'.

Two is enough, and enough people fall short of that that we should have no problem with achieving ZPG in the more advanced parts of the world.

The Chinese methods are drastic -- lots of compulsory abortions and harsh disincentives. There might be some laxity in that a couple that has a severely handicapped child gets another chance.... but China was in a drastic situation, one in which China was headed toward a population of 2 billion or something to that effect. Consider the catastrophe; it would have been a pretext for aggressive war for the Chinese equivalent of Lebensraum.

In the West the choices are more strictly economic -- choices of hedonism as opposed to large families. At some point parents might decide between a second car or a more 'grand' one, a nicer house, a dream vacation, or college education for the existing child. Maybe they are more harshly economic in China and would be even without the governmental coercion.

But that said, overpopulation means something nasty in America -- more unemployment and underemployment, more strip malls and box stores, longer commutes, higher real estate prices, higher school taxes...

Enforced family reduction will happen in many places, with India next in line. the pattern is consistent:

1. Population grows slowly in an agricultural society until the death rate and birth rate meet, usually due to poor nutrition, early death from avoidable diseases and reduced fecundity
2. An economic change occurs that permits better nutrition, better child healthcare and fecundity rises
3. A rapid increase in population begins
4. If the country is already highly populated., like India and China, panic sets-in
5. The people are asked to stop having 'excess' children. (NOTE: This is not usually required in a country with a well developed, 1st world economy, where it occurs naturally. If so, go to step 10)
6. Voluntary solutions fail, because the necessary social changes needed to reinforce them are absent
7. Bribery is tried, probably unsuccessfully
8. If bribery fails, mandates are imposed which may also fail
9. If mandates fail, the mandates will be backed with coercion that increases in magnitude until the results are obtained
10. Population begins to level-off, then fall (eventually)
11. Prosperity now accelerates, and the motivation to have children drops
12. If they were ever imposed, mandates and coercion cease
13. Population continues to fall
14. Bribery to have more children begins, but results are spotty
15. Bribery is increased and social stigma is implied to being greedy and childless
16. ...

Since that's where Japan and Germany are now, and they're on the leading edge, the next step is unknown.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Appreciate the alternate view.

And are you back for good?

Ragnarok called me on my backsliding. (blush) Might as well admit I'm an addict. Dangerous to show weakness in front of the cool kids, but unlike them, I fess up to my (expletive). It allows me to GBTW and face the music. Such would *destroy* them, for they are all-in on thier image as the cool kids.

They might even have to take straight jobs, and STFU. See Dr. Amber Volakis (Cutthroat Bitch) last episode, and Foreman (getting fired from New York Mercy, blackballed, nobody else will hire him but Cuddy) on House MD.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Might as well admit I'm an addict.

Hi, my name is Kiff, and so am I.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh yeah, and don't forget about immigration either.

Does anyone know if illegal aliens get counted in census reports?

Speaking of immigration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/ny...677&ei=5087%0A

Brazilians Giving Up Their American Dream

By NINA BERNSTEIN and ELIZABETH DWOSKIN
Published: December 4, 2007

Like hundreds of thousands of middle-class Brazilians who moved to the United States over the last two decades, Jose Osvandir Borges and his wife, Elisabeth, came on tourist visas and stayed as illegal immigrants, putting down roots in ways they never expected.

After packing up their plasma-screen TV, scholastic trophies and other fruits of 12 prosperous years in the Ironbound in Newark, the couple and their American-born daughter, Marianna, 10, were scheduled to fly back to Brazil for good this morning. They expect their son, Thiago, 21, to follow in a year or two, despite his reluctance to leave the only land that feels like home.

“You can’t spend your entire life waiting to be legal,” said Mr. Borges, 42, reflecting on a hard decision born of lost hopes, new fears and changing economies in both countries since he arrived in 1996. By law, the couple faces a 10-year bar on re-entering the United States, even as visitors.

That decision — to give up on life in the United States — is being made by more and more Brazilians across the country, according to consular officials, travel agencies swamped by one-way ticket bookings, and community leaders in the neighborhoods that Brazilian immigrants have transformed, from Boston to Pompano Beach, Fla.

No one can say how many are leaving. But in the last half year, the reverse migration has become unmistakable among Brazilians in the United States, a population estimated at 1.1 million by Brazil’s government — four to five times the official census figures.

To explain an often wrenching decision to pull up stakes, homeward-bound Brazilians point to a rising fear of deportation and a slumping American economy. Many cite the expiration of driver’s licenses that can no longer be renewed under tougher rules, coupled with the steep drop in the value of the dollar against the currency of Brazil, where the economy has improved.

“You put it all together, and why should you stay in an environment like that if you have a place like Brazil, where there’s hope, a light at the end of the tunnel and it’s not a train to run you over?” said Pedro Coelho, a businessman in Mount Vernon, N.Y., who is known as the mayor of Brazilians in Westchester County. “Are they leaving? Yes, by the hundreds.”

In Massachusetts, says Fausto da Rocha, the founder of the Boston-area Brazilian Immigrant Center, his compatriots — many here illegally — are leaving by the thousands, some after losing homes in the subprime mortgage crisis. In New York and New Jersey, travel agents and others who sell airline seats say that one-way bookings to Brazil have more than doubled since last year, to about 150 daily from Kennedy International Airport, and that flights are sold out through February.

And at Brazil’s consulate in Miami, which serves Brazilians in five Southeastern states, officials said a recent survey of moving companies and travel agencies confirmed what they had already surmised from their foot traffic: More Brazilians are leaving the region than arriving — the reversal of an upward curve that seemed unstoppable as recently as 2005, when Brazilians unable to meet tightened visa requirements were sneaking across the United States-Mexico border in record numbers.

It is too soon to say whether the reverse migration of Brazilians puts them in the vanguard of a larger trend among immigrants, or underscores their distinctiveness. Like Mr. Borges, who said he was poorly paid as a university teacher of religious studies in his native city of Curitiba, they generally come from more urban and educated classes than other major groups of illegal immigrants from Latin America, studies show. Many returning now have been investing their American earnings in Brazilian property.

But their own explanation for the surge back to Brazil contradicts conventional wisdom on both sides of the immigration debate.

For years, advocates of giving people like the Borgeses a chance to earn legal status have argued that illegal immigrants will only be driven further underground by enforcement measures like raids or denying them driver’s licenses. Advocates of harsher restrictions and penalties have argued that illegal immigration is now growing independently of the ebb and flow of the American economy. Returning Brazilians defy both contentions.

Faced with diminishing rewards and rising expenses in the United States, long separated from aging relatives in Brazil, “people say, ‘Is this worth it, being illegal, being scared?’“ said Maxine L. Margolis, a professor of anthropology at the University of Florida in Gainesville who has written extensively on Brazilians in the United States.

There are regional variations, but the pattern is consistent. In South Florida, the expiration of a driver’s license is often a turning point for families already caught short by the slump in housing construction, said Sister Judi Clemens, a pastoral assistant with Our Lady Aparecida Mission, which serves five different Brazilian communities in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. She noted that until seven years ago, Brazilians with tourist visas could get Florida licenses valid for eight years, but they are all expiring now and cannot be renewed.

“There’s no public transportation here in Florida, so people drive to work in fear and trembling,” worried that a traffic stop could mean months in immigration detention, she said. “A lot of people have just simply said, ‘I’ve had enough.’“

In Massachusetts, where there is more public transportation, a spate of high-profile immigration raids, coupled with home foreclosures, have played a key role in the exodus, said community leaders like Mr. da Rocha, a legal resident who came in 1989. “I believe we lost 5,000 Brazilians only this year,” he said. “The landlords are going to face a crisis soon.”

While Brazil does not yet offer the job opportunities of Ireland, which has drawn back emigrants in droves, neither is it an economically bleak or war-torn country. And like Italian immigrants early in the 20th century, who typically planned to return to Italy — half of them eventually doing so — many Brazilians arrived with the intention of going back as soon as they met their financial goals.

But like the Borges family, they soon changed their timetable.

“We came here to save enough money to buy a house” in Brazil, Mr. Borges said, recalling the early weeks when the family slept in a friend’s basement and he worked in construction for the first time. They expected to return to Brazil after two years.

Instead, he found his inner entrepreneur. He started a plumbing and construction business that soon employed upward of seven compatriots, paid taxes and helped build name-brand hotels in three states.

But in 2005, as the construction boom began to go bust, larger companies, prompted by labor unions, started to demand working papers, he said. And when his crew could not produce them, they were let go.

As the housing market faltered, weekly earnings in his business shrank from a high of $6,000 to barely $2,000, he said. Expenses like gas and rent rose, making it harder for him and Ms. Borges, who cleaned houses in New York, to pay off loans for the farm they were buying in Brazil.

The dollar, which once bought four Brazilian reals, dropped to a historic low of 1.7 reals in May. Then in June came their personal tipping point: the collapse of the bipartisan bill in Congress that would have offered them, and millions of other illegal residents, a path to legal status.

“After the law didn’t pass, it was like all the hope went away at once,” said Mr. Borges, who had traveled, with other members of St. James Catholic Church in Newark, to rallies supporting the bill in Trenton and Washington.

In past years, he allowed, he spent $26,000 on dubious and doomed efforts to secure a green card. Now, he hopes to make a living by processing sugar cane for ethanol on his Brazilian farm. “If we had papers, we’d stay forever,” said Ms. Borges, 41, who has been active in their children’s public schools. “We love this community.”

Proudly, they showed off the trophy that Marianna won in third grade in an anti-littering poster contest, for a design that is now featured in shop windows throughout the Ironbound.

It is in such neighborhoods, where Brazilians brought fresh bustle to faded storefronts or abandoned factories, that the departures are being felt most keenly.

“I’m scared,” said Francine Melo, the owner of the travel agency in Newark where Mr. Borges bought three one-way tickets for $1,708. “I make my living through these people.”

Another of her last-time customers, Norma dos Santos, a former house cleaner, said she felt she had no choice. Seven years after overstaying her visa, she said, she does not drive to work or pick up her children at school for fear that a traffic stop could put her in immigration detention.

“It’s just getting harder and harder to stay here without documents,” she said.

Still, she is uncertain that she is doing right by her American-born children, a newborn and a 2-year old boy.

“I’m worried they’ll grow up and ask me, ‘How could you have left America?’“ she said.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh yeah, and don't forget about immigration either.

Does anyone know if illegal aliens get counted in census reports?

Everyone who can be counted, is. Census takers cannot report illegals - by law, not that the illegals are likely to believe it. The same applies to the homeless, as if you can actually count those who hide.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Of course. As I understand, 2.1 children is the replacement level. Nobody has 2.1 children. One of the most prominent and vocal opponents is the Roman Catholic Church, which prefers large families because a large family might be 'proud' to dedicate a son to the Priesthood and a daughter to the Sisterhood...

We support the right of people to have a family b/c God declared all life to be sacred.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The GOP isn't the lynching party. The descendents of lynchers are now Republicans. They are Americans too and deserve representation. For a very long time the Democratic party represented their interests.

The coats work like this. In the beginning there were two factions, the Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans (also called Democratic Republicans). The Federalist died after 1816 and in 1820 America had only one party. So president Monroe in the election of 1820 was the only president since Washington to have have run unopposed. Historians call this period the era of good feeling because faction had (temporily) disappeared.

In the process of becoming the dominant party, a funny thing happened to the Democratic Republicans. They turned into Federalists. The Federalists had favored a tariff, a central bank (what we call the Fed today) a permanent Navy and a standing army. Democratic Republicans were opposed to all things things in 1800. By 1820, the Democratic-Republicans now favored all these things.

During the depression following the Panic of 1819, which many people blamed on the tight money policy of the central bank, a new faction calling themselves Democrats arose under the leader Andrew Jackson. The rest of the party, now called National Republicans, won the election of 1824, but went down in defeat in 1828. After that they started to call themselves Whigs.

So between 1820 and 1832, the Democratic Republicans split into two parties, the Democrats and Whigs. The Whigs were pretty much still the Federalists. Like the Fderalists their support was strongest in the Northest. The Democrats still had some of the libertarian positions Jefferson had run on in 1800, but were no longer pacifist. They favored a military strong enough to fight wars to drive Indians off their land, opening it for settlement. They also had accepted tariffs for revenue, not for protecting US industries. Democrats were strongest in the South and West.

The Democratic party was the dominant party. The Whigs only elected two presidents, Harrison in 1840 and Taylor in 1848. Both parties threw off splinter groups. The three most important are the Abolitionists (mostly Whigs who wanted to free the slaves), the Free Soilers (mostly Democrats who wanted free land for whites in the West so that they could form white-only states--they strongly opposed extension of slavery into these territories), and the Know Nothings (anti-immigrants).

The Whigs fell apart after the 1852 election. Abolitionists, former Whigs and Free Soilers united to form the Republican party in 1854. Their party was opposed to the extension of slavery outside of the South. Other Whigs took over the Know Nothings, converting them from a anti-immigrant to a patriotic party, which they called The American Party. They joined forces with the Republicans after the 1856 election.

So now we have the Republican party with two distinct wings. A left wing consisting of social liberals (abolitionists) and economic liberals (free soilers) and a right wing consisting of business interests (former Whigs) and patriotic nativists (Know Nothings). After the war they were the dominant party for a long time.

Southerners remained loyal to the Democratic party, who had supported their interests in the Civil War. Immigrants were not welcome in the Republican party (recall one of the founding groups was anti-immigrant) and they became Democrats. So the Democrats became a party of rural Southern Protestants and urban Northern Catholics.

For about 100 years after the formation of the Republican party, the American party system was very different from that in Europe. Rather than spliting on ideology, as European parties did and as the original Federalist/Republicans were split, the parties were hodgepodges of different groups. Both parties had "liberal" and "conservative" wings.

In the Republican party, racist Free Soilers coexisted with Radical Republicans who wanted to not only free the slaves, but give them forty acres and mule. On the Democratic side, Southern Baptists who detested popery coexisted with Roman catholics.

So Lincoln's new party was pro-little guy (they called for giving free land to ordinary guys) and stood against the entrenched power of the Southern "slaveocracy". They no longer favored a central bank. They went on to extend the franchise (to black men). All these things, standing up for the little guy, opposition to a central bank and extension of the franchise had been core anti-Federalist positions in 1800. This is the coat changing Lincoln is referring to. Actually it is only pieces of each others coats that got exchanged. Lincoln's Republicans still favored protective tariffs and government-sponsered infrastructure projects.

During the 20th century the two parties again exchanged pieces of each other's coats until they emerged as ideological entities by the end of the century. Today the Democratic party is the Left party and the Republican party is the Right party. The parties in the US have now returned to having distinct ideologies like the Federalist/Democratic-Republicans and like European parties. Again, another example of what Lincoln called coat changing.

A perfect example of the elegance that the straight man Master evokes from other players in this opera.

Originally Posted by zilch

Chart compliments of Magruder's American Government 1935 Edition:

HTH

And here the straight man Master comes close to revealing his hand (i.e. his feinting of being continuously clueless). Yet notice that while his response provides interesting information, it does not address the central issue of who's linage derives from former slave owners. Thus, he does not trap himself and, therefore, allows ad infinitum -- if only someone takes the bait.

A masterful player!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Yes, George Washington tried to avoid honors which traditionally were in his day reserved to royalty. What he would think of today, when such honors might be received by anyone, I could not say.

But that would only be a question of symbolism and fashion. I don't think a tradition of whose picture might be placed on currency a matter of Good and Evil. I kind of appreciate the 'dead presidents' tradition, where those who served well are honored, but those currently in office aren't given a chance to exalt themselves.

Back in the 3T the conservatives claimed they had absolute fixed values, often invoking the Bible, while the liberals were portrayed as post modern, unable to pin their values in terms of unchanging Good and Evil. It was the liberals who might assert that everything was relative, that there are two sides to every story.

As we go into the 4T this seems to be reversing. Some of the conservative leaning posters are the ones asserting that it is impossible to tell good from evil, that one can only determine what is best in solving the crisis in hindsight. The progressives are taking up the old standards that used to be thought of as traditional and conservative. Autocratic rule bad, democracy good. Torture and holding prisoners without due process bad, human rights good. Racism bad, equality good.

I am not surprised by this. As a 4T consensus develops, the primary issues involved become projected as Good and Evil. The Grey Champion uses strong moral language in promoting radical change. The problems become urgent and transforming, so moral language becomes appropriate. Meanwhile, the status quo faction has to pretend that things like totalitarian government, torture, slavery and pollution are morally neutral, that the moral judgments of those pushing the new values are not real.

Whose picture will appear on hard paper notes and coins will not be the key issue of the crisis. (Will there be hard paper notes and coins at crisis end?) Autocratic v democratic government, torture v human rights, and lawless imprisonment v due process are apt to be part of it.

Of course, some cannot distinguish between what is important and what is not, or between what is Good and what is Evil. When one's moral stance (or inability to perceive moral issues) is questioned, one can always change the subject to something trivial and irrelevant.

And here we have the elegant thoughtful response to one of the latest assertions of moral relativism by our soubrette. You can almost feel the banging of the head, the mashing of teeth, before the responder decides to attempt one more time to calmly convince his muse of the alternative of moral dualism.

Notice how each of the duet, the straight man and the soubrette, maintain each of their themes in so many variations on this thread alone. It might have made Ludwig feel inadequate with his comparably puny 33 Variations on A. Diabelli's Waltz!

I stand in awe of this opera and its masters!

Originally Posted by playwrite

And here the straight man Master comes close to revealing his hand...

Yer a pretentious jerk.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I said something on this forum years ago similar to Skab's post, and got a similar response from zilch. I think he sees an implied leap (on our parts) to a pb-esque solution, where there actually doesn't have to be one.

... I'll admit, I'm a bit clueless on this one. Anybody wanna clue me in here?

Originally Posted by 13rian

thanks again, COS

"false alarm people...turns out the liberals are not at the door to kill your children"

Are you kidding, approaching a door with the intent of killing kids could result in a liberals death at the hands of a conservative. The life of a liberal or liberal contributer is placed high above all others based on the liberal value system Nah, the liberals wouldn't attempt killing our kids. However, subjecting them to a future life of poverty, food stamps and a one room apart in an urban ghetto is a distinct possibilty.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Nah, the liberals wouldn't attempt killing our kids. However, subjecting them to a future life of poverty, food stamps and a one room apart in an urban ghetto is a distinct possibilty.

In recent years the fat-cats of America have shown few qualms about imposing economic uncertainty upon the working people -- not only blue-collar proles but also the middle class. There's huge money to be made from crack-the-whip management and Shylock financing. Poverty? With the acquiescence of a government that does its bidding, Corporate America has created great profits for shareholders and allowed gigantic salaries for some business executives while imposing poverty upon many who used to get paid reasonably well for their work.

In their ideal, food stamps would be unnecessary; starvation would be a viable alternative for failing to work at the terms that our ruling elite offers. Capitalism offers prosperity to workers to the extent that employers compete for workers. We no longer have a free-enterprise economy; we have a fascist economy. More of the same probably means full-blown fascism -- hard labor on starvation wages and at best barracks as living quarters so that a fortunate few can live like sultans.