Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 239







Post#5951 at 01-21-2012 11:16 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
01-21-2012, 11:16 AM #5951
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Nothing comes close to California in regional myopia and chauvinism.
Chauvinism, yes. Myopia, no. We think we're the greatest because we are.

It makes us insufferable, I acknowledge. Oh, and you're wrong; New York certainly comes close, and with the same justification.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#5952 at 01-21-2012 11:22 AM by annla899 [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,860]
---
01-21-2012, 11:22 AM #5952
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,860

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Chauvinism, yes. Myopia, no. We think we're the greatest because we are.

It makes us insufferable, I acknowledge. Oh, and you're wrong; New York certainly comes close, and with the same justification.
Heh. A close friend who grew up in S. CA calls it "the rotted coast."







Post#5953 at 01-21-2012 11:23 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
01-21-2012, 11:23 AM #5953
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
This was in response to the crowing about GM becoming the biggest automaker. One reason this happened is because Japanese auto companies were crippled for several months by the tsunami in spring 2011. This is unlikely to happen in 2012, and GM's perch atop the industry will be short lived.

James50
Yes, but even now, GM in the US is nowhere near the biggest, right?







Post#5954 at 01-21-2012 11:24 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-21-2012, 11:24 AM #5954
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Nothing comes close to California in regional myopia and chauvinism.

James50
Yea, they gave us both Ron Ray-gun and Tricky Dick!

"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#5955 at 01-21-2012 11:26 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-21-2012, 11:26 AM #5955
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
This was in response to the crowing about GM becoming the biggest automaker. One reason this happened is because Japanese auto companies were crippled for several months by the tsunami in spring 2011. This is unlikely to happen in 2012, and GM's perch atop the industry will be short lived.

James50
Still sounds off-key coming from Mr. Good Economy.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#5956 at 01-21-2012 11:31 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
01-21-2012, 11:31 AM #5956
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Still sounds off-key coming from Mr. Good Economy.
Sometimes even I have trouble holding off the iconoclast within. I am sure you understand.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5957 at 01-21-2012 11:44 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-21-2012, 11:44 AM #5957
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
Yes, but even now, GM in the US is nowhere near the biggest, right?
The numbers to keep in mind are 1.5 million, 10, and 0 - as in 1.5 million jobs not lost, a 10% unemployment rate that we would have had, and the zero cost of the bailout to taxpayers.

People say bondholders lost money but they would have lost money from the bankruptcy any way.

GM may or may not be number 1 in the world and it may or may not be the biggest employer in the US, but it and its supply chain are pretty damn big employers.

Too many Cosmo Girls (and Boys) on this forum!
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#5958 at 01-21-2012 11:45 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-21-2012, 11:45 AM #5958
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Sometimes even I have trouble holding off the iconoclast within. I am sure you understand.

James50
I have no idea what that word means!
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#5959 at 01-21-2012 12:17 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
01-21-2012, 12:17 PM #5959
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
I agree with Badger and Annla about Clinton. Indeed, at the time, I posed this question for people like Ziggy:

Suppose you were dating a woman (I assume you're a man, Ziggy), and you had made out, done phone sex, and had one blow job from her, and your best friend--some one to whom you would tell the truth--asked you, "Have you two had sex?" What would you say? I would have said, "no." And meant it.

And for the record, during Gingrich's second marriage he told another woman that he preferred oral sex so that he could say he hadn't slept with anyone else.
I'm just saying it *is* possible to condemn both of those actions. Despite what today's political climate feels like, there is no law saying you have to makes excuses for one and vilify the other based on your opinion of their politics or their party.

As for phone sex, some would consider that a form of cheating but is not even in the same league as physical contact and intimacy.

And finally, as for Gingrich's comments about oral sex, yes, it would be true that you don't have to "sleep with" someone to receive oral sex. But to me, the bigger point is: How many wives, outside of open marriages, would say that their husbands didn't cheat on them because it was "only a BJ"?

We've been over this too many times already, but for all those who say "it's a private matter between him and his wife," I don't think so in this case for two reasons -- first, the sex was with a subordinate of his, which always brings the consensual nature of it (and the abuse of power aspect) into question (regardless of what the participants say), and second of all, if he would violate the trust of his wife, why should anyone else trust him?

Gingrich's actions were slimy, but it's possible to see that without making excuses for Clinton. We don't all see the world through blue- or red-tinted glasses. And when two things both stink, I don't go out of my way to defend why one stinks more than the other, especially for political expediency. "My team stinks less" is hardly inspiring or admirable.







Post#5960 at 01-21-2012 12:28 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
01-21-2012, 12:28 PM #5960
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
I'm just saying it *is* possible to condemn both of those actions. Despite what today's political climate feels like, there is no law saying you have to makes excuses for one and vilify the other based on your opinion of their politics or their party.

As for phone sex, some would consider that a form of cheating but is not even in the same league as physical contact and intimacy.

And finally, as for Gingrich's comments about oral sex, yes, it would be true that you don't have to "sleep with" someone to receive oral sex. But to me, the bigger point is: How many wives, outside of open marriages, would say that their husbands didn't cheat on them because it was "only a BJ"?

We've been over this too many times already, but for all those who say "it's a private matter between him and his wife," I don't think so in this case for two reasons -- first, the sex was with a subordinate of his, which always brings the consensual nature of it (and the abuse of power aspect) into question (regardless of what the participants say), and second of all, if he would violate the trust of his wife, why should anyone else trust him?

Gingrich's actions were slimy, but it's possible to see that without making excuses for Clinton. We don't all see the world through blue- or red-tinted glasses. And when two things both stink, I don't go out of my way to defend why one stinks more than the other, especially for political expediency. "My team stinks less" is hardly inspiring or admirable.
You are using a debater's trick. You began by saying, it wasn't really about sex, it was about lying. When three posters made a strong case that Clinton didn't lie, you responded, it wasn't about lying, it was about sex.
We have also discussed the "subordinate" issue here and by Ms. Lewinsky's account (what is she doing these days, the way?) there is no question as to who was the aggressor in this case.







Post#5961 at 01-21-2012 12:29 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
01-21-2012, 12:29 PM #5961
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
The numbers to keep in mind are 1.5 million, 10, and 0 - as in 1.5 million jobs not lost, a 10% unemployment rate that we would have had, and the zero cost of the bailout to taxpayers.

People say bondholders lost money but they would have lost money from the bankruptcy any way.

GM may or may not be number 1 in the world and it may or may not be the biggest employer in the US, but it and its supply chain are pretty damn big employers.

Too many Cosmo Girls (and Boys) on this forum!
I was not complaining about the bailout per se, merely making the point that GM is far from being only an American company.







Post#5962 at 01-21-2012 12:46 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
01-21-2012, 12:46 PM #5962
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

This story from the time says it all. Newt initially jumped all over Monica's story, then backed off in the spring of 1998. But in the fall he helped devise a moralistic anti-Clinton set of commercials that aired in key districts. Then, after the election, the Republicans, while determined to push on with impeachment despite the losses they suffered, dumped him as well. Gee, I wonder if that could have been because. . .so the story shows Newt to be the upright, sterling, honest fellow we have always known him to be. Sorry I couldn't find you a youtube clip, James,. but I think this will do.

Let me be clear that Gingrich's personal behavior, while extraordinary even by political standards--there's nothing he doesn't think he can have, including three wives--is not the most important thing about him by any means. He suffers from grandiosity, a total lack of political principle, hatefulness, and overweening ambition. He will say anything to get where he wants. And like Barney Frank, I never imagined anything so delicious as him becoming the Republican candidate, which suddenly, momentarily, seems possible again. (Maybe he should be the veep. "A Mormon and a polygamist!"







Post#5963 at 01-21-2012 12:55 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
01-21-2012, 12:55 PM #5963
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
You are using a debater's trick. You began by saying, it wasn't really about sex, it was about lying. When three posters made a strong case that Clinton didn't lie, you responded, it wasn't about lying, it was about sex.
You have an overactive imagination. And I still don't think most women would agree that their husband did not have sex with another woman if she gave oral sex to him. And I suspect many courts would consider that as adultery. If I told my wife I didn't have sex with another woman because she only gave me a BJ, you think she'd accept that?

We have also discussed the "subordinate" issue here and by Ms. Lewinsky's account (what is she doing these days, the way?) there is no question as to who was the aggressor in this case.
Mostly irrelevant to me. A superior has to have better judgment than to get sucked into it (no pun intended). Sure, she was probably intoxicated by the power and the title. But someone with the power and the title needs to exercise better judgment.

There's no doubt in my mind that many on this board would be a LOT more critical of Clinton's actions if he were a Republican. And none would be coming to his defense.
Last edited by ziggyX65; 01-21-2012 at 01:00 PM.







Post#5964 at 01-21-2012 01:02 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
01-21-2012, 01:02 PM #5964
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
This story from the time says it all. Newt initially jumped all over Monica's story, then backed off in the spring of 1998. But in the fall he helped devise a moralistic anti-Clinton set of commercials that aired in key districts. Then, after the election, the Republicans, while determined to push on with impeachment despite the losses they suffered, dumped him as well. Gee, I wonder if that could have been because. . .so the story shows Newt to be the upright, sterling, honest fellow we have always known him to be. Sorry I couldn't find you a youtube clip, James,. but I think this will do.
Yes, Newt's a tool and a sleazebag as well as a hypocrite. I've never argued against that. Doesn't have any bearing on my opinion of the Clinton affair one way or another.







Post#5965 at 01-21-2012 01:20 PM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
01-21-2012, 01:20 PM #5965
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
Right after I saw the Obama Al Green video, some one posted a Bush blooper real.

He's a very funny dude. I actually think some of those goofs were on purpose and his sense of humor.
Felt the same way...

Best...







Post#5966 at 01-21-2012 02:17 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-21-2012, 02:17 PM #5966
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
This story from the time says it all. Newt initially jumped all over Monica's story, then backed off in the spring of 1998. But in the fall he helped devise a moralistic anti-Clinton set of commercials that aired in key districts. Then, after the election, the Republicans, while determined to push on with impeachment despite the losses they suffered, dumped him as well. Gee, I wonder if that could have been because. . .so the story shows Newt to be the upright, sterling, honest fellow we have always known him to be. Sorry I couldn't find you a youtube clip, James,. but I think this will do.

Let me be clear that Gingrich's personal behavior, while extraordinary even by political standards--there's nothing he doesn't think he can have, including three wives--is not the most important thing about him by any means. He suffers from grandiosity, a total lack of political principle, hatefulness, and overweening ambition. He will say anything to get where he wants. And like Barney Frank, I never imagined anything so delicious as him becoming the Republican candidate, which suddenly, momentarily, seems possible again. "..."
I have never cared for Gringrich and I hope that he is not on the ballot anywhere. He should stay an "idea man" where he is more than well paid. I actually like some -not all of Ron Paul's policies- , but I think that Romney is the best choice remaining for the GOP.







Post#5967 at 01-21-2012 03:29 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
01-21-2012, 03:29 PM #5967
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

I heard last night, forget exactly where, that whoever wins South Carolina will be the Republican presidential candidate. Yikes!

New South Carolina Polls: Newt Gingrich Has Big Lead In Primary



WASHINGTON -- Two new telephone polls concluded on the eve of the South Carolina primary not only confirm continuing momentum toward Newt Gingrich; they suggest that the former House speaker may be headed for a surprisingly comfortable, double-digit win.


A live-interviewer survey conducted by the American Research Group on Thursday and Friday nights finds Gingrich now leading Mitt Romney 40 to 26 percent, followed by Ron Paul (18 percent) and Rick Santorum (13 percent). An ARG poll fielded earlier in the week had Gingrich and Romney in a virtual tie (with 32 and 31 percent, respectively).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5968 at 01-21-2012 04:10 PM by TeddyR [at joined Aug 2011 #posts 998]
---
01-21-2012, 04:10 PM #5968
Join Date
Aug 2011
Posts
998

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
You have an overactive imagination. And I still don't think most women would agree that their husband did not have sex with another woman if she gave oral sex to him. And I suspect many courts would consider that as adultery. If I told my wife I didn't have sex with another woman because she only gave me a BJ, you think she'd accept that?



Mostly irrelevant to me. A superior has to have better judgment than to get sucked into it (no pun intended). Sure, she was probably intoxicated by the power and the title. But someone with the power and the title needs to exercise better judgment.

There's no doubt in my mind that many on this board would be a LOT more critical of Clinton's actions if he were a Republican. And none would be coming to his defense.
I'm not Republican and I am highly critical of Clinton (on many things besides this too). She wasn't just a subordinate, she was an intern for christsakes. This is taboo in the private sector (as Willard loves to call it endlessly).

Let's put it this way. If you were a front line manager somewhere and your company had an intern for the summer, and you had a fling with him/her, and HR discovered this, you'd be gone the next day. Why is the standard lower for the POTUS.







Post#5969 at 01-21-2012 04:17 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-21-2012, 04:17 PM #5969
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
I have no idea what that word means!
Look in the mirror, PW!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5970 at 01-21-2012 04:20 PM by TeddyR [at joined Aug 2011 #posts 998]
---
01-21-2012, 04:20 PM #5970
Join Date
Aug 2011
Posts
998

Carville hitting the GOP when they are down:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

I'm starting to think this election may not even be that close. O hasn't even turned on the machine yet "for Pete's sake."







Post#5971 at 01-21-2012 04:26 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-21-2012, 04:26 PM #5971
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
I'm just saying it *is* possible to condemn both of those actions. Despite what today's political climate feels like, there is no law saying you have to makes excuses for one and vilify the other based on your opinion of their politics or their party.

As for phone sex, some would consider that a form of cheating but is not even in the same league as physical contact and intimacy.

And finally, as for Gingrich's comments about oral sex, yes, it would be true that you don't have to "sleep with" someone to receive oral sex. But to me, the bigger point is: How many wives, outside of open marriages, would say that their husbands didn't cheat on them because it was "only a BJ"?

We've been over this too many times already, but for all those who say "it's a private matter between him and his wife," I don't think so in this case for two reasons -- first, the sex was with a subordinate of his, which always brings the consensual nature of it (and the abuse of power aspect) into question (regardless of what the participants say), and second of all, if he would violate the trust of his wife, why should anyone else trust him?

Gingrich's actions were slimy, but it's possible to see that without making excuses for Clinton. We don't all see the world through blue- or red-tinted glasses. And when two things both stink, I don't go out of my way to defend why one stinks more than the other, especially for political expediency. "My team stinks less" is hardly inspiring or admirable.
Some considerations on this:

1) There are no politicians who are very "trustworthy". Noone thinks there are. If Clinton were "trustworthy" in his personal affairs, there would be something else not to trust him about; and were of course. And Mr. Clean Barack Obama is really "trusted" by all, eh?

2) What Clinton did is just not that important. It was a minor indiscretion, and a minor stretching of the truth to try and cover it up for personal reasons-- that didn't work big time.

3) The worst part of what Clinton did, is to give a knife to his opponents, whom he already knew were ruthless. What a lapse of judgement, and what a waste of a potentially great presidency. He just could not control his appetites, even in the face of this relentless right-wing conspiracy. He was a casualty of his boomer culture in this respect, it's pretty safe to say. But he benefited from it too; no candidate or president ever had such an ability as his to connect with people and an audience. And of course, it's all writ large in his you-know-what.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5972 at 01-21-2012 04:31 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-21-2012, 04:31 PM #5972
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
There's no doubt in my mind that many on this board would be a LOT more critical of Clinton's actions if he were a Republican. And none would be coming to his defense.
Only if they are hypocrites.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5973 at 01-21-2012 04:33 PM by TeddyR [at joined Aug 2011 #posts 998]
---
01-21-2012, 04:33 PM #5973
Join Date
Aug 2011
Posts
998

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
......no candidate or president ever had such an ability as his to connect with people and an audience.
And you accuse me of exaggerations?

Kennedy, Reagan and TR all say, what am I chopped liver here?

p.s. He certainly was good at connecting, but best ever?







Post#5974 at 01-21-2012 04:36 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-21-2012, 04:36 PM #5974
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
I heard last night, forget exactly where, that whoever wins South Carolina will be the Republican presidential candidate. Yikes!

New South Carolina Polls: Newt Gingrich Has Big Lead In Primary





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009
The Real Clear Politics average has him up 5 points, with the latest poll up 9 points. But the American Research Group is not included in their average.

South Carolina has always voted for the eventual winner since 1980, but that doesn't mean Romney can't "make history" again.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5975 at 01-21-2012 04:41 PM by TeddyR [at joined Aug 2011 #posts 998]
---
01-21-2012, 04:41 PM #5975
Join Date
Aug 2011
Posts
998

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The Real Clear Politics average has him up 5 points, with the latest poll up 9 points. But the American Research Group is not included in their average.

South Carolina has always voted for the eventual winner since 1980, but that doesn't mean Romney can't "make history" again.
Even though you predicted Romney, I see you have laid seeds for having been right even if it isn't him.

I still think you'll be right on the original prediction, so you can stop hedging.

Wow if they nominate Newt. It will make for an interesting horserace with lots of unexpected twists and turns. It will also make the debates high theatre. Newt is quick on his feet and the best debater of the elephant parade (term stolen from Prof. Kaiser).
-----------------------------------------