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 348







Post#8676 at 08-29-2012 12:51 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-29-2012, 12:51 AM #8676
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I guess that's a "yes" in favor of a proactive death penalty.
So how many innocent embryonic lives are you willing to terminate as collateral damage in your quest to kill one Hitler?
Hitler apparently was a wanted child. That argument fails.

Just imagine what the child who is the product of rape or incest receives as signals. Much of what most people consider the core realities of human nature prove the consequences of the environment of early childhood. Are adults competent, attentive, and trustworthy? Or do they show no loyalties except to the hedonistic moment?
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#8677 at 08-29-2012 01:41 AM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
08-29-2012, 01:41 AM #8677
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
At least one damn ole socialist seems to think that terminating life is a way of caring for it.
Come on, mercy killing is OK.







Post#8678 at 08-29-2012 10:59 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
08-29-2012, 10:59 AM #8678
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Obama Assassination Plotted By American Soldiers Who Formed 'Armed Militia', Court Hears

HOLY SH**!!! I think this would count as treason...

A group of American soldiers formed an armed militia and planned to kill President Obama and overthrow the US government, a court in Georgia has heard.\
The alleged plot emerged during a murder case against four members of the Forever Enduring Always Ready (FEAR) gang on Tuesday.

Prosecutors say the men spent $87,000 (£56,000) on weapons to launch attacks against targets including vehicles belonging the Department of Homeland Security employees and a dam.

They were also accused said to be planning to take over the Fort Stewart military base near to the court in Georgia.

According to the Associated Press, prosecutor Isabel Pauley told the judge: "This domestic terrorist organisation did not simply plan and talk.

"Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

“All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military,” Pauley said.
Isaac Aguigui, Anthony Peden, Christopher Salmon and Michael Burnett are accused of murdering former soldier 19-year-old Michael Roark his 17-year-old girlfriend Tiffany York.

The defendants are accused of killing Roark and York after the pair learned of their hopes to overthrow the government.

The Washington Post reports that Aguigui funded his militia using $500,000 (£315,000) in insurance money he got following death of his pregnant wife a year ago.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#8679 at 08-29-2012 12:06 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
08-29-2012, 12:06 PM #8679
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#8680 at 08-29-2012 12:13 PM by JohnMc82 [at Back in Jax joined Jan 2011 #posts 1,962]
---
08-29-2012, 12:13 PM #8680
Join Date
Jan 2011
Location
Back in Jax
Posts
1,962

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Well, this isn't surprising for a banana republic. In the inertia analysis (assuming no significant stimuli changing our national velocity) this is how our next civil war plays out:

As the military grows more powerful and civilian leadership more incompetent, a series of small military rebellions eventually gives way to a more organized coup d'etat coming from higher in the brass.

At first, the military rank and file might support this move as a patriotic purge of corruption and political weakness. However, by using military discipline and order, opportunists can exploit such a situation to create a regime worse than the one that was supposed to be overthrown. In fact, the whole plot might be orchestrated & funded by someone with ties to the current civilian power-structure in the hopes of increasing their relative share.

That leaves two armies: an official army, marked by extreme power and a grim view of hierarchy & order; and a rebel army, fighting instinctively against tyranny and united loosely around abstract populist ideals.

Anyway, it would take a few more decades of inertia to get to that point, and another few decades for it to play out. What I'm trying to figure out is which variables can prevent that kind of outcome without simply delaying it.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.

'82 - Once & always independent







Post#8681 at 08-29-2012 12:23 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
08-29-2012, 12:23 PM #8681
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
For some, the pro-life value stops after birth. Then it's, make fun of, or criticize anyone (damn ole socialists) who wants to provide safety nets after they exit the birth canal. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but being pro-life means a caring about life from cradle to grave.

What this election is about, is that. Are we going to fall for yet another Republican salesman who is going to try and charm us into turning our lives and our society over to our bosses?

The boss just wants to make money, as much as (s)he can, however (s)he can. That is the "bottom line" of our business culture, not life. They wish to shut down the safety nets after birth, and end protections for women from the ravages of patriarchy. It gets in the way of their earnings. They sell us and charm us with talk about "freedom" and "responsibility" and "no new taxes" ("read my lips," remember that one? It worked in 1988). They talk about evil "big government" that "forces" things on us and "interferes" in our lives (as if business is equal to life).

Trickle-down philosophy is a powerful intoxicant, however many times it's been tried as policy and failed and tried and failed and tried and failed again and again and again. That does not stop the bosses from trotting it out again and again and again ad nauseum, because it works in US elections, and very effectively keeps us in the bosses' chains, as Biden so well said.

But this is a simple decision. Free-will charity does not meet the need; rich people don't donate enough. And charity is not our only need; infrastructure, investment, education, organization, protection, etc. are needed too. Government works, and is necessary. It is up to us, as members of a democratic society, to choose whether to pay the taxes that are necessary to fund these things. We are not individuals only, but individual members of a larger community. We don't have tyranny; we have taxation with representation. We need to vote to pay taxes for the things we need, and not for the things we don't need.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#8682 at 08-29-2012 12:42 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
08-29-2012, 12:42 PM #8682
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
Well, this isn't surprising for a banana republic. In the inertia analysis (assuming no significant stimuli changing our national velocity) this is how our next civil war plays out:

As the military grows more powerful and civilian leadership more incompetent, a series of small military rebellions eventually gives way to a more organized coup d'etat coming from higher in the brass.

At first, the military rank and file might support this move as a patriotic purge of corruption and political weakness. However, by using military discipline and order, opportunists can exploit such a situation to create a regime worse than the one that was supposed to be overthrown. In fact, the whole plot might be orchestrated & funded by someone with ties to the current civilian power-structure in the hopes of increasing their relative share.

That leaves two armies: an official army, marked by extreme power and a grim view of hierarchy & order; and a rebel army, fighting instinctively against tyranny and united loosely around abstract populist ideals.

Anyway, it would take a few more decades of inertia to get to that point, and another few decades for it to play out. What I'm trying to figure out is which variables can prevent that kind of outcome without simply delaying it.
Use the power, or lack of same, granted by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the US Consitution, that prohibits the funding of a standing army for more than two years at a time. We can't create a permanent army today that we can't eliminate entirely in two years by simply doing nothing.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#8683 at 08-29-2012 01:29 PM by JohnMc82 [at Back in Jax joined Jan 2011 #posts 1,962]
---
08-29-2012, 01:29 PM #8683
Join Date
Jan 2011
Location
Back in Jax
Posts
1,962

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
We can't create a permanent army today that we can't eliminate entirely in two years by simply doing nothing.
But we've already created a permanent army and there's no way we could even come up with a plan to bring them all home in two years time. If by some freak accident the funding just suddenly dried up, the excess stock of weapons, ammunition, and man-power would be more than enough to re-establish the supply lines by force.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.

'82 - Once & always independent







Post#8684 at 08-29-2012 02:09 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
08-29-2012, 02:09 PM #8684
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
But we've already created a permanent army and there's no way we could even come up with a plan to bring them all home in two years time. If by some freak accident the funding just suddenly dried up, the excess stock of weapons, ammunition, and man-power would be more than enough to re-establish the supply lines by force.
I don't see the Army acting outside the law to preserve its funding; there have been cuts (HUGE ones) in the past that provoked no such response. That said, the Constitutional provision requiring no funding for the Army for more than 2 years at a time means nothing. Military budgets are renewed annually, let alone bi-annually. Even the Navy gets its funding on an annual basis, and there are no limitations on that funding in the Constitution at all.
"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#8685 at 08-29-2012 04:32 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
08-29-2012, 04:32 PM #8685
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
Well, this isn't surprising for a banana republic. In the inertia analysis (assuming no significant stimuli changing our national velocity) this is how our next civil war plays out:

As the military grows more powerful and civilian leadership more incompetent, a series of small military rebellions eventually gives way to a more organized coup d'etat coming from higher in the brass.

At first, the military rank and file might support this move as a patriotic purge of corruption and political weakness. However, by using military discipline and order, opportunists can exploit such a situation to create a regime worse than the one that was supposed to be overthrown. In fact, the whole plot might be orchestrated & funded by someone with ties to the current civilian power-structure in the hopes of increasing their relative share.

That leaves two armies: an official army, marked by extreme power and a grim view of hierarchy & order; and a rebel army, fighting instinctively against tyranny and united loosely around abstract populist ideals.

Anyway, it would take a few more decades of inertia to get to that point, and another few decades for it to play out. What I'm trying to figure out is which variables can prevent that kind of outcome without simply delaying it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZ3jPMM5Ac
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#8686 at 08-30-2012 03:21 AM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
08-30-2012, 03:21 AM #8686
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Killing to end suffering is fine. I've done that myself.
Killing to prevent an impossible-to-quantify amount of future suffering is a different story entirely.
Especially when you're speaking in general terms, beyond an individual woman's "choice."
I also know several people who were adopted as babies because they were unwanted by their birth parents. The world is undoubtedly a better place with them in it.
I completely agree. I think killing to end an assumption of future suffering is completly wrong. I know some very good adopted kids as well.







Post#8687 at 08-30-2012 09:37 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
08-30-2012, 09:37 AM #8687
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Exile 67' View Post
I completely agree. I think killing to end an assumption of future suffering is completly wrong. I know some very good adopted kids as well.
My understanding of what the Rani was saying was that she was disagreeing with the idea that unwanted children affirmatively should be aborted, i.e., that it would be wrong not to abort them. She was not saying that aborting them would be wrong, only that not aborting them would also not be wrong.

I agree with her, but I disagree with you.
"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#8688 at 08-30-2012 09:45 AM by Aramea [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 743]
---
08-30-2012, 09:45 AM #8688
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
743

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I guess that's a "yes" in favor of a proactive death penalty.
So how many innocent embryonic lives are you willing to terminate as collateral damage in your quest to kill one Hitler?
Well, this is why it is called "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion". The decision is left up to the woman carrying the child. If the pregnancy is the result of rape their are a number of outcomes.

1) The mother could decide that she can't tolerate the situation and considers the embryo/fetus a parasite.

2) The mother could be indifferent to the embryo/fetus.

3) The mother could love it anyway as it IS her child.

It is the first situation that most of the discussion is about. Most people seem to believe (right or wrong) that most women would consider the fetus a parasite and it should be her choice whether or not to bring it to term. Pregnancy is not a bruise that will heal over the following week, it is a nine month long constant reminder of something that she would rather forget followed by a life-long responsibility that she did not choose.

In the second and third situations, the mother could bring the child to term and either raise it or put it up for adoption with somewhat less angst. Does this make her better than a traumatised woman that does not feel she can cope with bearing her rapists child? Are pro-lifers willing to assist in medical care for woman and child? If the woman decides to raise it, does she get any help?







Post#8689 at 08-30-2012 10:03 AM by JohnMc82 [at Back in Jax joined Jan 2011 #posts 1,962]
---
08-30-2012, 10:03 AM #8689
Join Date
Jan 2011
Location
Back in Jax
Posts
1,962

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I don't see the Army acting outside the law to preserve its funding; there have been cuts (HUGE ones) in the past that provoked no such response. That said, the Constitutional provision requiring no funding for the Army for more than 2 years at a time means nothing. Military budgets are renewed annually, let alone bi-annually. Even the Navy gets its funding on an annual basis, and there are no limitations on that funding in the Constitution at all.
Right, but if under an extreme circumstance like M&L described, one where the funding just suddenly and completely vanishes on a shorter time scale than we can even withdraw stationed troops, we'd be left with a bunch of well-armed and well-trained soldiers scattered across the globe. History doesn't suggest that they'd just peacefully hitch-hike back home. Nor could a civilian threat of funding cuts stop a coup that was already taking place.

Basically, yeah, that constitutional provision and all of its judicial interpretations is meaningless in the face of real life power imbalances.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.

'82 - Once & always independent







Post#8690 at 08-30-2012 02:00 PM by Aramea [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 743]
---
08-30-2012, 02:00 PM #8690
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
743

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
My concern was that someone (a dude no less) was implying that pregnancies resulting from rape SHOULD be aborted, because of unknown future consequences.
Then he expanded it to include unwanted children/pregnancies.
It's an inaccurate generalization to characterize kids resulting from unplanned/undesired pregnancies as more screwed up than others.

Ok, thank you, I was hoping you would clear up your position. I would pretty much disagree wholesale with the assertion that anyone be compelled or encouraged to abort a child merely because he/she was a product of rape. Conservatives love to deride the term "pro-choice", but that is what it really is. It is a decision that only a woman in that situation should make. I am less sure about my stance on "plain old abortion" used as a prophylactic. In this case, there is a dude (to use your term ) involved that may very well want the child whether the woman wants it or not. In that case, I think that he should be able to make his case for compelling the woman to bring the child to term and let him adopt it. Alternatively, if he doesn't want it, but the woman does ... where does supporting the child financially come into play? For me, supporting the born child has always been a more important issue than abortion. Until we figure those issues out, "pro-choice" is seems to be the proper stance.







Post#8691 at 08-30-2012 03:07 PM by Aramea [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 743]
---
08-30-2012, 03:07 PM #8691
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
743

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
If a dude can compel the woman to bring the child to term if he wants it but she doesn't, I'd say it's only fair that the woman can compel the dude to pay child support if she wants it and he doesn't.
It's kind of sad (to me) that we even have to talk about "compelling" people to do anything to care for their own children.
Yep, that was my point in a way. The fact is, the dude can't compel her to have the baby, but in most jurisdictions, he WILL be paying child support if she decides to have it. If he refuses to pay he can be thrown in jail. Sure, he shoulda kept his pants on if he didn't want a child, but one sided decisions are unfair and eventually something will have to give. This is why we have creepy old men carrying on about "legitimate rape" and "no exceptions". They are sick of not having a voice and "no exceptions" gives them that voice. The rules are then set up fairly. You WILL have the child and the guy WILL have a say. This is of course, whether dear ol' dad wants a say or not. This is one of the things I saw coming, but I didn't really think it would be on such hard lines. I pictured two people that barely know each other showing up before a judge when the guy wants the baby. The judge could have the power to allow the guy to adopt the baby if he met certain criteria. Yea, it sounds cold, but abortion issues are pretty cold. At the heart of it is a child that at least one parent doesn't want.







Post#8692 at 08-30-2012 03:48 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
08-30-2012, 03:48 PM #8692
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
It's an inaccurate generalization to characterize kids resulting from unplanned/undesired pregnancies as more screwed up than others.
There are dozens of studies backing up strong correlations between unplanned pregnancies and poverty, abuse, criminality, low education, etc. Now, the causation could be reversed in that disadvantaged people are more likely to have poor access to health care and/or poor sex education. But the goal should be to break that cycle and promote availability of, and knowledge of, contraception and abortion in such communities.







Post#8693 at 08-30-2012 06:14 PM by Aramea [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 743]
---
08-30-2012, 06:14 PM #8693
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
743

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Hmm ... not entirely "fair," because you can't put a dollar amount on being forced to carry a pregnancy in your body for nine months.
But I do see your point.
I have always had a problem assigning numbers to qualitative data because I always want to be "right". You can calculate the cost of a pregnancy, but you can't accurately calculate the toll on a woman's body, especially if there are complications. You also can't accurately calculate weird things like drug and alcohol consumption, which a woman forced to carry a child might not pay any attention to. She may not pay attention to pre-natal care. So, you are right that you can't put a solid dollar amount on it.

When you don't factor in Dad's rights, there is still an increased risk of black markets in babies -or- babies that can't find homes. When we were adopting our son, we found out that it is somewhat of a myth that there are orders of magnitudes more adoptive parent than babies. It only took us two years from start to finish and we took a six month 'mental health' break from the process. It just take moneys paid to adoption agencies. Women that choose to have a baby and put it up for adoption actually care about the outcome. Women forced to bear the child may or may not.

All of this to say, leaving the decision up to the woman has been the easiest for society, but leaves out any consideration for the child. That understandably offends some people. I only take offense when people don't acknowledge that there are really serious issues involved with forcing women to bear children that they don't want.







Post#8694 at 08-30-2012 08:48 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
08-30-2012, 08:48 PM #8694
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
Right, but if under an extreme circumstance like M&L described, one where the funding just suddenly and completely vanishes on a shorter time scale than we can even withdraw stationed troops, we'd be left with a bunch of well-armed and well-trained soldiers scattered across the globe. History doesn't suggest that they'd just peacefully hitch-hike back home. Nor could a civilian threat of funding cuts stop a coup that was already taking place.

Basically, yeah, that constitutional provision and all of its judicial interpretations is meaningless in the face of real life power imbalances.
This is the curse of having a very old and quite short and brief constitution that is very difficult to amend We have been forced to "interpret" and stretch the meaning of the various clauses to the breaking point just to keep our modern society functioning.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#8695 at 08-31-2012 01:07 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-31-2012, 01:07 AM #8695
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
This is the curse of having a very old and quite short and brief constitution that is very difficult to amend We have been forced to "interpret" and stretch the meaning of the various clauses to the breaking point just to keep our modern society functioning.
What made it work was not so much that it is foolproof (if you don't believe so, then consider that the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union is heavily a plagiarism of ours with some Marxist-Leninist claptrap thrown in and the endorsement of the dominance of the one Party that broached no external opposition or internal dissent) but instead that those people who know its seams either pretended not to know them or out of some moral vision refused to exploit them. (Paradoxically the Soviet system depended upon a weak formal government but an all-powerful Party whose leader was the source of all power including the ability to decide life or death over millions. So much for the desirability of weak formal government).

The Republican Party of our time has become a cadre party. That it espouses a hands-off approach to the power of economic elites (who really dominate the Party) except as endorsement of the power of those elites suggests that it believes in eventual single-Party, or at least dominant-Party government at the first opportunity for the indefinite future. That is, of course, until a revolution of some kind (at best as in central or southeast Europe in 1989, at worst a revolution by fanatics as in Russia in 1917 or Iran in 1979) or some catastrophic war in which sovereignty goes to some foreign general at best like Lucius Clay or Douglas MacArthur.

We now have political figures like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist who would exercise power as party bosses to whom all are responsible but who are beyond scrutiny. These two have no problem with unelected lobbyists representing corporate power and dictating the behavior of politicians who need only be re-elected -- surely by dishonest means, if necessary, to maintain power.

When a political party becomes itself a branch of government -- similar in practice to the 'leading role' of the old Communist Party in the mercifully-defunct Soviet Union -- then democracy is dead. The checks and balances necessary for responsible government no longer exist. Weak formal government does not itself imply freedom.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#8696 at 08-31-2012 01:29 AM by annla899 [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,860]
---
08-31-2012, 01:29 AM #8696
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,860

I am deeply sorry I missed Clint Eastwood talking to an invisible chair.







Post#8697 at 08-31-2012 08:03 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
08-31-2012, 08:03 AM #8697
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by annla899 View Post
I am deeply sorry I missed Clint Eastwood talking to an invisible chair.
I wish that I had missed it. What a waste of time.







Post#8698 at 08-31-2012 09:18 AM by JDFP [at Knoxville, TN. joined Jul 2010 #posts 1,200]
---
08-31-2012, 09:18 AM #8698
Join Date
Jul 2010
Location
Knoxville, TN.
Posts
1,200

Quote Originally Posted by annla899 View Post
I am deeply sorry I missed Clint Eastwood talking to an invisible chair.
You should be - it was highly entertaining. I had a great laugh at his quips. He definitely should have been scripted though - that was a major mistake in not having a prepared script for him as I'm sure he would have hit it every line perfectly as he had a couple awkward pauses (I could just imagine the conversation of: "Hey guys, Eastwood is here, let's get him up there before Mittens comes on! What? Who needs a script?!"). Eastwood is a cultural icon and I absolutely think it was great to have him at the convention, but even with the humor he presented I do have to ask the wisdom in presenting him just two speakers before Mittens and not on the first or second night. And he should have been scripted and better prepared as opposed to fly on the spot.

It would have been a bit like having Frank Sinatra do an opening speech (with no script) in introducing Reagan in '80 or Dana Carvey introducing Bush Sr. in '92 (well, Dana Carvey isn't exactly on the same level as Sinatra or Eastwood but you get the point). While it's always great to see a cultural icon - I'll even admit it's probably not the best idea to have them right before the nominee to steal fire from them. Especially not scripted.

I enjoyed it for what it was and had a great laugh - but I still have to question the wisdom of doing it when they did it - and my God, no script again!

Wait, what, you want Clint Eastwood to do what with himself? I don't think he's going to do that.

j.p.

"And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so? I did. And what did you want? To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth.‎" -- Raymond Carver


"A
page of good prose remains invincible." -- John Cheever










Post#8699 at 08-31-2012 12:43 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
08-31-2012, 12:43 PM #8699
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

I've never been a big fan or supporter of Mitt Romney, but I have to give him and the Republican Party credit for the way the convention was pieced together. They managed to take the two most important political constituencies out there right now - the Tea Party movement and disillusioned Obama supporters - and weld them together seamlessly into a unified message. If Romney can perform well throughout the rest of the campaign, it could produce a powerful winning coalition.

We're in a familiar situation. In 1960, after a very popular Republican presidency, the Democrats elected a relatively moderate, even conservative president in John F. Kennedy. We all know what happened after that - he was assassinated by a communist, and the far left started charging to the extreme, dragging the Democrats with them. By 1980 that had produced chaos and a crippled economy. All of a sudden the "extreme" views of Ronald Reagan didn't seem so extreme anymore. For the next 12 years, the Democrats had the living daylights stomped out of them by voters, until they finally caved in and nominated a relatively moderate/conservative candidate in Bill Clinton (albeit he was a crook, and one of the most corrupt, dishonest presidents in American history). We're now on the verge of 1980 happening again, even though Mitt Romney is no Reagan. The Democrats and the far left sense this, and they're panicking. But they can't change course right now and moderate their positions, so they're just lashing out with increasingly hysterical charges of racism, sexism, etc. slinging mud furiously and playing identity politics harder than ever, despite the fact that it always ends up destroying them.

The rep of the Democrats as an extreme party that's toxic to the economy, that drove them farther and farther from power over the last 30 years, could be on the verge of being cemented again. Someone at the RNC (I forget who) asked the most pertinent question for voters right now. If Obama is re-elected, how will the next four years be any different from the last four? That's this election's version of "are you better off than you were four years ago?". And that could very well be what causes a repeat.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#8700 at 08-31-2012 12:56 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
08-31-2012, 12:56 PM #8700
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
They managed to take the two most important political constituencies out there right now - the Tea Party movement and disillusioned Obama supporters - and weld them together seamlessly into a unified message.
No, they didn't. Disappointed Obama supporters are mostly progressives; moderates don't have the same problem with him. Disappointed Obama supporters will NOT be voting for Romney; the question is whether they will be voting for Obama, voting third party, or not voting. Appealing to them and at the same time to Tea Partiers is a logical impossibility.
"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
-----------------------------------------