Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Unfortunately, the real problem would be convincing anyone to use it once it was built. Americans don't have a record of using mass transit as long as any other option is available.

Sure they do. What are airplanes other than long-distance mass transit?

If you could hop on an HSR and get from downtown Columbus to midtown Manhattan in three hours -- comparable to flying once you factor in transportation to Port Columbus airport, taxiing out, taking off, landing, and getting from JFK to Times Square, would travelers line up to use the system? If the price were comparable to flying, you bet they would!

If you could get from Columbus to Seattle in ten hours, comparable to flying when you factor in the aforementioned, plus connecting in Minneapolis, would people use the system if the price were comparable to flying? I would!

And should the price of petroleum quadruple or worse, as is very possible in this Fourth Turning, magnetically-levitated (solar-power-assisted?) trains might actually come out far ahead economically when compared to aircraft.

Granted, as far is it goes.

But can we realistically do it that cheaply? Also, since the system would require track of whatever sort we end up choosing, can you predict where the system needs to go accurately enough to make it work?

Don't get me wrong, on one level I find the idea appealing, but some nagging little voice in me says there'll be problems in practice.

Yeah, I'll admit there'd be problems, both financial and practical, if we were to go all out and try to build such a system today, HC. There would have quite likely been comparable issues had FDR tried to build Ike's Interstate system back in the 1930s.

A nationwide HSR system might be built in a fashion similar to the NSIDH-- the planning stage might take place in the late-4T and early-1T, with the system itself being built gradually over the next two-and-a-half Turnings as it becomes more apparent at which locations the system is most needed and practical to build.

Yeah, I'll admit there'd be problems, both financial and practical, if we were to go all out and try to build such a system today, HC. There would have quite likely been comparable issues had FDR tried to build Ike's Interstate system back in the 1930s.

A nationwide HSR system might be built in a fashion similar to the NSIDH-- the planning stage might take place in the late-4T and early-1T, with the system itself being built gradually over the next two-and-a-half Turnings as it becomes more apparent at which locations the system is most needed and practical to build.

Yeah, I'll admit there'd be problems, both financial and practical, if we were to go all out and try to build such a system today, HC. There would have quite likely been comparable issues had FDR tried to build Ike's Interstate system back in the 1930s.

A nationwide HSR system might be built in a fashion similar to the NSIDH-- the planning stage might take place in the late-4T and early-1T, with the system itself being built gradually over the next two-and-a-half Turnings as it becomes more apparent at which locations the system is most needed and practical to build.

Originally Posted by justmom

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by justmom

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Actually, historically consensus in the 4T is something of the exception. Of the last six Crisis periods, 4 were marked by internal conflict, if you count the Revolutionary War as 'internal' (it started as a civil war). Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

OH. :-?

All this Left/Right stuff is meaningless at the moment, because whatever Realignment brings will rearrange what everyone thinks "Left" and "Right" represent, respectively. Or at least who is considered what. Just about the only sure thing is that whoever the dominant party is in the end will write the history and affix the labels to the benefit of their "Legacy".

Originally Posted by justmom

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by justmom

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Actually, historically consensus in the 4T is something of the exception. Of the last six Crisis periods, 4 were marked by internal conflict, if you count the Revolutionary War as 'internal' (it started as a civil war). Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

OH. :-?

All this Left/Right stuff is meaningless at the moment, because whatever Realignment brings will rearrange what everyone thinks "Left" and "Right" represent, respectively. Or at least who is considered what. Just about the only sure thing is that whoever the dominant party is in the end will write the history and affix the labels to the benefit of their "Legacy".

Originally Posted by justmom

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by justmom

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Actually, historically consensus in the 4T is something of the exception. Of the last six Crisis periods, 4 were marked by internal conflict, if you count the Revolutionary War as 'internal' (it started as a civil war). Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

OH. :-?

All this Left/Right stuff is meaningless at the moment, because whatever Realignment brings will rearrange what everyone thinks "Left" and "Right" represent, respectively. Or at least who is considered what. Just about the only sure thing is that whoever the dominant party is in the end will write the history and affix the labels to the benefit of their "Legacy".

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Yeah, I'll admit there'd be problems, both financial and practical, if we were to go all out and try to build such a system today, HC. There would have quite likely been comparable issues had FDR tried to build Ike's Interstate system back in the 1930s.

A nationwide HSR system might be built in a fashion similar to the NSIDH-- the planning stage might take place in the late-4T and early-1T, with the system itself being built gradually over the next two-and-a-half Turnings as it becomes more apparent at which locations the system is most needed and practical to build.

Actually, that reminds of a thought I've had, about future Turnings and what they'll see left from ours.

Used to be, in the big cities in the USA, you'd find enormous, luxurious old hotels, in the depths of the inner-city blights. The reason is that they were constructed back in the golden age of rail travel, to accept passengers disembarking from the intracity passenger trains.

The advent of automobile travel made roads the primary means of travel, consigning rail (at least temporarily) to cargo-only for the most part, and the center of activity shifted away from the old railheads.

I wonder, 50 years from now, what you'd find at the critical intersection zones of the big Interstates. Today, it's the center of activity, then, who knows?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Yeah, I'll admit there'd be problems, both financial and practical, if we were to go all out and try to build such a system today, HC. There would have quite likely been comparable issues had FDR tried to build Ike's Interstate system back in the 1930s.

A nationwide HSR system might be built in a fashion similar to the NSIDH-- the planning stage might take place in the late-4T and early-1T, with the system itself being built gradually over the next two-and-a-half Turnings as it becomes more apparent at which locations the system is most needed and practical to build.

Actually, that reminds of a thought I've had, about future Turnings and what they'll see left from ours.

Used to be, in the big cities in the USA, you'd find enormous, luxurious old hotels, in the depths of the inner-city blights. The reason is that they were constructed back in the golden age of rail travel, to accept passengers disembarking from the intracity passenger trains.

The advent of automobile travel made roads the primary means of travel, consigning rail (at least temporarily) to cargo-only for the most part, and the center of activity shifted away from the old railheads.

I wonder, 50 years from now, what you'd find at the critical intersection zones of the big Interstates. Today, it's the center of activity, then, who knows?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Yeah, I'll admit there'd be problems, both financial and practical, if we were to go all out and try to build such a system today, HC. There would have quite likely been comparable issues had FDR tried to build Ike's Interstate system back in the 1930s.

A nationwide HSR system might be built in a fashion similar to the NSIDH-- the planning stage might take place in the late-4T and early-1T, with the system itself being built gradually over the next two-and-a-half Turnings as it becomes more apparent at which locations the system is most needed and practical to build.

Actually, that reminds of a thought I've had, about future Turnings and what they'll see left from ours.

Used to be, in the big cities in the USA, you'd find enormous, luxurious old hotels, in the depths of the inner-city blights. The reason is that they were constructed back in the golden age of rail travel, to accept passengers disembarking from the intracity passenger trains.

The advent of automobile travel made roads the primary means of travel, consigning rail (at least temporarily) to cargo-only for the most part, and the center of activity shifted away from the old railheads.

I wonder, 50 years from now, what you'd find at the critical intersection zones of the big Interstates. Today, it's the center of activity, then, who knows?

Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Actually, neither of those were, either. The Glorious Revolution Crisis gave America rebellions, Indian wars, and conflict with appointed royal governors, while in England it featured internal strife leading to a change of dynasty. The Depression was marked by vitriolic political divides, socialist and fascist movements, and labor unrest. FDR's political power was challenged, however ineffectively, by a very noisy and angry conservative faction, and he also received challenges from the left.

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings. And even that's illusory, because the stage had expanded to a global one, and on that scale, the greatest and bloodiest war in history puts the lie to any notion of unity and harmony.

Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Actually, neither of those were, either. The Glorious Revolution Crisis gave America rebellions, Indian wars, and conflict with appointed royal governors, while in England it featured internal strife leading to a change of dynasty. The Depression was marked by vitriolic political divides, socialist and fascist movements, and labor unrest. FDR's political power was challenged, however ineffectively, by a very noisy and angry conservative faction, and he also received challenges from the left.

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings. And even that's illusory, because the stage had expanded to a global one, and on that scale, the greatest and bloodiest war in history puts the lie to any notion of unity and harmony.

Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Actually, neither of those were, either. The Glorious Revolution Crisis gave America rebellions, Indian wars, and conflict with appointed royal governors, while in England it featured internal strife leading to a change of dynasty. The Depression was marked by vitriolic political divides, socialist and fascist movements, and labor unrest. FDR's political power was challenged, however ineffectively, by a very noisy and angry conservative faction, and he also received challenges from the left.

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings. And even that's illusory, because the stage had expanded to a global one, and on that scale, the greatest and bloodiest war in history puts the lie to any notion of unity and harmony.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Actually, neither of those were, either. The Glorious Revolution Crisis gave America rebellions, Indian wars, and conflict with appointed royal governors, while in England it featured internal strife leading to a change of dynasty. The Depression was marked by vitriolic political divides, socialist and fascist movements, and labor unrest. FDR's political power was challenged, however ineffectively, by a very noisy and angry conservative faction, and he also received challenges from the left.

True enough, but they did come rather closer than the others. In England itself (then the center of our culture, since we were English then) the Glorious Revolution was relatively unified.

As for the last 4T, there wasn't much danger of serious large-scale internal (meaning American) violence, while the previous two were both marked by full scale civil/secession wars (the Revolution began as a civil war). A political challenge, effectual or not, doesn't quite compare to armies amarch.

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings. And even that's illusory, because the stage had expanded to a global one, and on that scale, the greatest and bloodiest war in history puts the lie to any notion of unity and harmony.

True, but even as the stage and scale of the overall violence expanded, America unified. There still isn't a genuine global society, so calling WW II an internal conflict doesn't quite apply.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Actually, neither of those were, either. The Glorious Revolution Crisis gave America rebellions, Indian wars, and conflict with appointed royal governors, while in England it featured internal strife leading to a change of dynasty. The Depression was marked by vitriolic political divides, socialist and fascist movements, and labor unrest. FDR's political power was challenged, however ineffectively, by a very noisy and angry conservative faction, and he also received challenges from the left.

True enough, but they did come rather closer than the others. In England itself (then the center of our culture, since we were English then) the Glorious Revolution was relatively unified.

As for the last 4T, there wasn't much danger of serious large-scale internal (meaning American) violence, while the previous two were both marked by full scale civil/secession wars (the Revolution began as a civil war). A political challenge, effectual or not, doesn't quite compare to armies amarch.

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings. And even that's illusory, because the stage had expanded to a global one, and on that scale, the greatest and bloodiest war in history puts the lie to any notion of unity and harmony.

True, but even as the stage and scale of the overall violence expanded, America unified. There still isn't a genuine global society, so calling WW II an internal conflict doesn't quite apply.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Actually, neither of those were, either. The Glorious Revolution Crisis gave America rebellions, Indian wars, and conflict with appointed royal governors, while in England it featured internal strife leading to a change of dynasty. The Depression was marked by vitriolic political divides, socialist and fascist movements, and labor unrest. FDR's political power was challenged, however ineffectively, by a very noisy and angry conservative faction, and he also received challenges from the left.

True enough, but they did come rather closer than the others. In England itself (then the center of our culture, since we were English then) the Glorious Revolution was relatively unified.

As for the last 4T, there wasn't much danger of serious large-scale internal (meaning American) violence, while the previous two were both marked by full scale civil/secession wars (the Revolution began as a civil war). A political challenge, effectual or not, doesn't quite compare to armies amarch.

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings. And even that's illusory, because the stage had expanded to a global one, and on that scale, the greatest and bloodiest war in history puts the lie to any notion of unity and harmony.

True, but even as the stage and scale of the overall violence expanded, America unified. There still isn't a genuine global society, so calling WW II an internal conflict doesn't quite apply.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings.

I've said before that there's a natural human tendency (myself included) to compare the current Cycle to the last one, esp. since the last Cycle is still well within living memory. We keep referring to things like 'our FDR' or 'our New Deal', etc.

Even S&H, IMHO, fall into this trap at times themselves.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings.

I've said before that there's a natural human tendency (myself included) to compare the current Cycle to the last one, esp. since the last Cycle is still well within living memory. We keep referring to things like 'our FDR' or 'our New Deal', etc.

Even S&H, IMHO, fall into this trap at times themselves.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only in its final years, those of World War II, did that Crisis exhibit the unity we (erroneously) associate with Fourth Turnings.

I've said before that there's a natural human tendency (myself included) to compare the current Cycle to the last one, esp. since the last Cycle is still well within living memory. We keep referring to things like 'our FDR' or 'our New Deal', etc.

Even S&H, IMHO, fall into this trap at times themselves.

H.C., it's true that the last Crisis involved less civil violence than the prior three. Hopefully, we won't see a replay of the Civil War or the Revolution this time, either! But the context of the discussion involved the idea that a 4T is a time of consensus and unity. I have said before that I don't think that's true. It's a time when people stop diverting themselves with trivialities and focus on essential issues, but that doesn't mean they agree about how those issues should be resolved. We think of a 4T as a time of unity only because of the national unity that emerged in World War II. But that represents only the final four years of one Crisis, and it would be hard to find another example. Also, during WWII there was plenty of conflict and violence, it was just pushed off into the international arena rather than manifesting internally.

I think this last election saw people focusing on essential issues for the first time in decades, and the Democrats lost because they failed to do so themselves.

H.C., it's true that the last Crisis involved less civil violence than the prior three. Hopefully, we won't see a replay of the Civil War or the Revolution this time, either! But the context of the discussion involved the idea that a 4T is a time of consensus and unity. I have said before that I don't think that's true. It's a time when people stop diverting themselves with trivialities and focus on essential issues, but that doesn't mean they agree about how those issues should be resolved. We think of a 4T as a time of unity only because of the national unity that emerged in World War II. But that represents only the final four years of one Crisis, and it would be hard to find another example. Also, during WWII there was plenty of conflict and violence, it was just pushed off into the international arena rather than manifesting internally.

I think this last election saw people focusing on essential issues for the first time in decades, and the Democrats lost because they failed to do so themselves.

H.C., it's true that the last Crisis involved less civil violence than the prior three. Hopefully, we won't see a replay of the Civil War or the Revolution this time, either! But the context of the discussion involved the idea that a 4T is a time of consensus and unity. I have said before that I don't think that's true. It's a time when people stop diverting themselves with trivialities and focus on essential issues, but that doesn't mean they agree about how those issues should be resolved. We think of a 4T as a time of unity only because of the national unity that emerged in World War II. But that represents only the final four years of one Crisis, and it would be hard to find another example. Also, during WWII there was plenty of conflict and violence, it was just pushed off into the international arena rather than manifesting internally.

I think this last election saw people focusing on essential issues for the first time in decades, and the Democrats lost because they failed to do so themselves.

On another thread today, the subject of Stonewall Patton's personally insulting, uncivil and abusive posts came up, in particular regards to being directed at a certain poster. Surprise, surprise, this ain't the first time at all. And why it bothers anyone at this forum is way beyond me. It should come as no surprise that if this Patton guy senses somebody, not firmly in the Bush camp -- a place he equates with the Nazi Gestapo -- begins to actually like Bush a little, it is high time for Mr. Whiteshirt to clean their house.

And if that means insulting them, slandering them, cussing them, demeaning them, so be it!

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

One weekend's worth of bashing from a supposed libertarian, who goes by the name of "Stonewall Patton":

"HC, you Bush Republicans really need to find hobbies."

"You Bush Republicans are becoming nearly as despicable as the Bush crowd which you willfully support."

"Yes, and your and all these other Bush Kool-Aid drinkers' despicable arrogance in presuming to dictate how others conduct their memorial service reveals far more about the depths of depravity to which you have willingly sunk by handing over your souls in supporting this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House."

"You people are sick."

"You people are absolutely despicable."

"Why don't you people find a hobby and keep your noses out of other people's drawers? Gross."

"Absolutely despicable, HC. Get a hobby and mind your own business."

"No, your audacity in going out of your way to traumatize a family in their moment of grief is what is pathetic and twisted. Get a life."

"get your nose out of other people's underwear. It is absolutely disgusting."

"And you are going to keep milking it like the despicable partisan Bush Kool-Aid drinker which you have always tried strenuously not to protray yourself as."

"Get it? Now get a life and quit dancing on dead men's coffins like a Bush Kool-Aid drinker."

"Have you always been a Bushbot or was it only triggered by this grieving family's memorial service? Seriously."

"If you are a Bushbot, then it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you".

"So are you going to continue to insult my intelligence by insisting that the Office of Homeland Security".

"So based on the timing, you, following the Flatulent Fraud's lead, wish to politicize this tragedy with "equal time" arguments! That is sick. Just let it go."

"Ignore the Flatulent Fraud and let it go."

"I don't get angry at anybody anymore, HC."

"There is no hatred, HC."

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic

As for the increasingly uncivil and abusive character of your [Stonewall's] postings, that's your business, and your problem. All I will add is that your anger is your right, but the constant and growing flow of personal insults in your postings weakens the thrust of your arguments, which I find relevant and sometimes sound. But the more your postings trend toward the personal insults (Kool Aid drinker, etc), the more likely others are to skip even bothering to read them.

By the way, if any of you fail to see the suppression of free speech and thought via intimidation, threat and brazen use of demeaning slander in the previous post, I afraid you wouldn't recognize a truelife agent of the Gestapo if your life depended on it.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

By the way, if any of you fail to see the suppression of free speech and thought via intimidation, threat and brazen use of demeaning slander in the previous post, I afraid you wouldn't recognize a truelife agent of the Gestapo if your life depended on it.

Hey, I actually like HC's style... he definitely seems to be one of the most civil posters here (even if he agrees with Bush and actual conservative Republicans a little too much for my taste ;-) ) - and his analysis is always good; actually, I would say that this quote list is one of your better compilations (a few others - like the one Kiff pointed out fairly recently - seem to be misleading)...