Originally Posted by Brian Rush

So, JPT, does that mean you accept the bet, or not?

I'll add a #5: we will have caps in place on greenhouse emissions, with or without cap-and-trade.

Remember, if you take the bet, and I'm wrong on EVEN ONE of these predictions as of January 1, 2005, you win $1,000. I only win if I'm right on ALL FIVE.

Take me up on it, or not?

I don't expect to be posting here 15 years from now, and if I was I doubt I would remember making the bet. I'm just basing my statements on what I actually see happening. In particular, nearly all of your ideas are bad for the economy. If they are implemented, the economy will not turn around, and those who put them in place will be thrown out. It's not 1932 anymore. We've learned and moved on. The people are infinitely better informed. More importantly, we already have massive unfunded enitilements in place that are driving us toward fiscal disaster. The New Deal didn't work the first time it was tried. We recovered in spite of it, not because of it, due to an ancient thing called "the spoils of war".

Don't worry about whether you're going to be posting in 15 years or not. If you accept the bet, we'll make a record of it and place it where it's accessible by either of us. I'd be willing to exchange real-life contact information as well, but if you don't want to do that we'll find a workaround.

If you're not willing to make the bet, then you're not as confident as you're pretending to be, and in fact you shouldn't be -- but then, you shouldn't pretend, either. I am completely confident -- completely -- about all five of these predictions. I know -- know, with absolute certainty and the ability to document it -- that you are mistaken about all of them.

For example, take health-care reform. You are obviously relying on polls that show a majority of people disapprove of the Senate health-care bill. But I, having looked a bit deeper into the matter, find that a majority of people support the specific provisions that are IN the bill, and that a BIG majority -- 70% to be exact -- support a public option. So the reality is that the lack of support for the bill is a product, NOT of the public's rejection of the idea of comprehensive health-care reform or of "socialized medicine," but of a combination of ignorance about the bill's provisions, and the fact that it doesn't go far enough.

Which is why my prediction is that by 2025 we will have comprehensive health care reform that is AT LEAST as thorough as the bills that have already passed Congress. It may (I think will) be MORE extensive. But it certainly won't be less.

That's just one example. You're equally off-base on the other four. But I'm not just saying that, I'm willing to bet on it. Are you?

If you're not, then as I said, you are not as confident as you're pretending. And I think you should admit as much.

Hannity special is on now. John Xenakis is on talking about the 1950s.

Great viewing! The fact that it's a one hour special shows that people are waking up to a potential crisis.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Don't worry about whether you're going to be posting in 15 years or not. If you accept the bet, we'll make a record of it and place it where it's accessible by either of us. I'd be willing to exchange real-life contact information as well, but if you don't want to do that we'll find a workaround.

If you're not willing to make the bet, then you're not as confident as you're pretending to be, and in fact you shouldn't be -- but then, you shouldn't pretend, either. I am completely confident -- completely -- about all five of these predictions. I know -- know, with absolute certainty and the ability to document it -- that you are mistaken about all of them.

For example, take health-care reform. You are obviously relying on polls that show a majority of people disapprove of the Senate health-care bill. But I, having looked a bit deeper into the matter, find that a majority of people support the specific provisions that are IN the bill, and that a BIG majority -- 70% to be exact -- support a public option. So the reality is that the lack of support for the bill is a product, NOT of the public's rejection of the idea of comprehensive health-care reform or of "socialized medicine," but of a combination of ignorance about the bill's provisions, and the fact that it doesn't go far enough.

Which is why my prediction is that by 2025 we will have comprehensive health care reform that is AT LEAST as thorough as the bills that have already passed Congress. It may (I think will) be MORE extensive. But it certainly won't be less.

That's just one example. You're equally off-base on the other four. But I'm not just saying that, I'm willing to bet on it. Are you?

If you're not, then as I said, you are not as confident as you're pretending. And I think you should admit as much.

I was criticizing Bob Butler for his certainty about things he has no way of knowing. I only draw conclusions based on what has already happened. And the public has already turned against most of the policies you're talking about. You are just in denial about it.

John Xenakis is like the star of this thing. He's in all the clips they've shown.

One note in my favor: Sean Hannity (1961) clearly views himself as a Boomer. Meaning Barack Obama (1961)...yep.

Not much mention of S&H except in general terms of how GIs overprotected Boomers, which led to their irresponsibility, which led to the current situation.

For the record, that was my voice you heard near the end of the program stating that the shape of the new order is up to us and to the younger generations. I guess they didn't want to start a nationwide riot by showing my face. (It was right after Neil's last appearance.)

Steve Bannen tried to keep things on an even keel. The Tea Party movement hadn't gotten going when he interviewed me; I'm quite surprised he's such a fan. He did make it clear the Democratic Party was not the problem, numerous times, but he was a minority of one next to Hannity and his producer.

Huge deficits are characteristic of Crises, indeed, both the other two had far bigger ones than we have now. But that's for another thread.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Wes: I'm a Conservative and I agree. He can be a real jack-ass! But, so can the MSNBC gang. They all pretty much are entertainers and make me vomit. Do your own homework Wes and think for yourself. Come to your OWN conclusions and don't be afraid to change your mind. Good luck; You're our future for the new High. PoC67

I agree, this is why I typically do not watch cable television. I did watch MSNBC some in the past, but I became tired of them a couple of years ago. Therefore, now I primarily obtain the news from the NYT, the WP, or the Internet.

As for the documentary, I did enjoy the parts they showed of Neil Howe's interview. It's too bad we did not get to see or hear more from Dr. Kaiser.

This is the first time I have ever heard the voice of or seen Sean Hannity, and I am mystified as to how someone so mentally challenged (for you young'uns, that's a euphemism for retarded) could have his own TV program. What a disappointment the last hour has been. I never watch Fox, and I shall certainly never watch it again.


Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I was criticizing Bob Butler for his certainty about things he has no way of knowing. I only draw conclusions based on what has already happened. And the public has already turned against most of the policies you're talking about. You are just in denial about it.

Uh, the bet is with Brian, not Bob. So, do you take the $1000.00 bet or not?

Originally Posted by David Krein

This is the first time I have ever heard the voice of or seen Sean Hannity, and I am mystified as to how someone so mentally challenged (for you young'uns, that's a euphemism for retarded) could have his own TV program. What a disappointment the last hour has been. I never watch Fox, and I shall certainly never watch it again.


Pax,

Dave Krein '42

David, your dissatisfaction with Sean-man is due in large part to a simple misunderstanding, Hannity is not and never will be a journalist. He's not even an entertainer in the true sense. He's a rabble-rousing promoter. Ron Popeil has nothing Hannity doesn't have in spades.

So watch him as you would an infomercial, and you won't be disappointed again.

After managing to trudge (Drudge?) : through an hour of Fox and Hannity I do have a few comments.

*Very sensationalistic opening. The first five minutes were all eye candy designed to try to pull the viewer in for the big sale to come later. This technique is of course old, but the constant flashing of clips from the Sept. 2008 meltdown struck me as overkill.

*The remainder of the program left me flat. I'm not surprised by this, I expected as much.
The big sale as such was not quite as overt as I expected. There was even a little anti corporate ranting. The best part of the show, IMO, was where they pointed out that the old style risk adverse partnership finance has been replaced by the corporate form which of course absolves the so called expert from almost all liability when things go wrong. My main criticism is that they never really tied everything together. There was no real tie in as to cause and effect. To follow their reasoning, if it can be called that, somehow the spoiling of the boomers as children in the 1950's made the economy meltdown in 2008. Not a word about objective factors such as how the repeal of Glass-Stegall in 1999 essentially allowed Wall Street to play with other peoples' money.

*Finally, I know that this was a spin job and most likely not very representative of the movie itself, but and here is my ideological moment-is this all they got?
If conservatives think that they're going to convince anyone not already in their camp with muddled mush like this, well then I'm ready to start betting people as to how the 4T will turn out. :

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I was criticizing Bob Butler for his certainty about things he has no way of knowing. I only draw conclusions based on what has already happened. And the public has already turned against most of the policies you're talking about. You are just in denial about it.

Then you should have no problems taking my bet, right?

If you don't, you demonstrate to everyone here that you're only whistling past the graveyard.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Wes: I know. I'd love to see a doc w/Dr. K(et al) focused on the Turnings. I try to expose myself to all forms of the MSM(Conservative and Liberal) to understand what news others are experiencing. IMO, anyone that is so one-sided as Hannity cannot be trusted. His current criticism of Bush II is such revisionist BS; He adored him. That said, what's even worse is a "yes-man", because even 100% criticism is bound to have some truth. I never trust individuals, only facts. I must admit though, despite Glenn Beck's annoying personality, he does present some info that I personally know to be true; I was suprised it was on TV actually. Anyway, they're all just entertainers anyway. Don't trust me, trust yourself and don't beat yourself up if/when these liers let you down. They live in a completely different reality IMO.
PoC67

Paddy Chayefsky was ahead of his time in predicting what would happen with regards to television:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Then you should have no problems taking my bet, right?

If you don't, you demonstrate to everyone here that you're only whistling past the graveyard.

The only thing I'm demonstrating is that I think it's stupid to bet money with someone over the internet, especially on a bet that will only pay off 15 years from now.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

*Finally, I know that this was a spin job and most likely not very representative of the movie itself, but and here is my ideological moment-is this all they got?
If conservatives think that they're going to convince anyone not already in their camp with muddled mush like this, well then I'm ready to start betting people as to how the 4T will turn out. :

I'd have to see the film (which I hope to do) before drawing a conclusion. I would put it this way: the Hannity show (and perhaps the film itself) seemed like more of a diagnosis than a prescription. "Food for thought" as it were, based on ideas that those of us here are very familiar with. And a very healthy dose of Boomer-bashing, which I always support.

Considering that they were on there to promote the film, the filmmakers are not going to want the whole thing to be "given away" you know...so they presumably wanted it to be a "teaser".

Originally Posted by David Krein

This is the first time I have ever heard the voice of or seen Sean Hannity, and I am mystified as to how someone so mentally (retarded) could have his own TV program.

Yeah, stick with Hardball, Olbermann, and CNN et al dude. I certainly don't think Walter Cronkite, America's most trusted Anti-Establishment media voice would disagree with you. Fox News & Hannity et al dwarfs the other news networks and their Cronkite-like personalities simply because FOX is the only real Establishment media today, save the powerful wacko right-wing RADIO cranks.

Olbermann et al simply speak truth to power. The real "power," obviously, belongs to Hannity et al, who do nothing but tear down and speak ill of Our Dear Leader, Obama.

Yup, the Powerful Hannity Republicans Suck! The Powerless Obama Democrats Rock!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

John Xenakis is like the star of this thing. He's in all the clips they've shown.

Glad I missed it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The only thing I'm demonstrating is that I think it's stupid to bet money with someone over the internet, especially on a bet that will only pay off 15 years from now.

No, because it's not. It's absolutely zero-risk, except to the extent you have a sense of honor about it, and so there's no stupidity about it.

What you're demonstrating is that you're not nearly as confident about what you're saying as you pretend to be. Which in turn demonstrates you're not as stupid as some might suppose.

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt

Considering that Al Gore was known to be on board from the beginning, it is a shame that he wasn't a contributer.

Very good point. Bought many members of Congress a copy of Generations I think.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Uh, the bet is with Brian, not Bob. So, do you take the $1000.00 bet or not?

Hell, I'd take the bet.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, because it's not. It's absolutely zero-risk, except to the extent you have a sense of honor about it, and so there's no stupidity about it.

What you're demonstrating is that you're not nearly as confident about what you're saying as you pretend to be. Which in turn demonstrates you're not as stupid as some might suppose.

I'd say he's demonstrating that he's a better businessman than you.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Paddy Chayefsky was ahead of his time in predicting what would happen with regards to television:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

~Chas'88

Chas: I'm a media junkie as well. TCM is pretty much the only channel I enjoy. That and Hannity's America of course!(gag!) That's was disturbing just typing it!(LOL)