Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(09-07-2016, 02:46 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 01:48 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Are you familiar the view that the US is like the UK, with what effectively is a virtual constitution?

https://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2013/12/...l-history/

The original concept of constitutional change by Amendment was proven false in the aftermath of the Civil War when Amendments were passed and then blatantly ignored without consequence for 70 years. After this abrogration of the Constitution it made less sense to use amendments to make fundamental changes and we moved to the British method.

Our problem is we are trying to straddle the fence. We either need to decide to get on the written Constitution side of the fence or the older, traditionally British virtual side. Now one interesting thing. If we go for the British side then we better darn well brush up on the Magna Carta.

No. The Magna Carta would be irrelevant as you must certainly know unless you haven't thought about this issue at all.

(09-07-2016, 01:48 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Are you familiar the view that the US is like the UK, with what effectively is a virtual constitution?

https://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2013/12/...l-history/

The original concept of constitutional change by Amendment was proven false in the aftermath of the Civil War when Amendments were passed and then blatantly ignored without consequence for 70 years. After this abrogration of the Constitution it made less sense to use amendments to make fundamental changes and we moved to the British method.

I am familiar with the American notion of the 'living constitution', which basically means ignoring the constitution if enough people feel like doing so.  I agree that enough people have agreed to do so through much of the country's history.  This doesn't mean we ought to roll over and let Washington DC usurp as much power as they feel like.

(09-07-2016, 12:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]If everyone seemed like an asshole to him, he wouldn't be able to single out the vegans and bicyclists.

He claimed that every vegan is a "militant vegan", which is a good indicator that he's a jerk who pisses people off and then turns around and accuses them of being easily offended fanatics.

(09-07-2016, 01:48 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Are you familiar the view that the US is like the UK, with what effectively is a virtual constitution?

https://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2013/12/...l-history/

The original concept of constitutional change by Amendment was proven false in the aftermath of the Civil War when Amendments were passed and then blatantly ignored without consequence for 70 years. After this abrogration of the Constitution it made less sense to use amendments to make fundamental changes and we moved to the British method.

IMO from a practical POV constitutions are irrelevant, actual political and economic power relations and other socioeconomic forces are what actually matters and what is considered "constitutional" will change as society changes, the actual wording is irrelevant. It is just like with scripture-centered religions where believers interpret their holy texts to mean what they want them to mean, and I think that is an apt comparison given how many Americans, especially on the Right, treat the constitution like a holy text and repeat sections of it like magical mantras.

(09-07-2016, 01:48 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Are you familiar the view that the US is like the UK, with what effectively is a virtual constitution?

https://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2013/12/...l-history/

The original concept of constitutional change by Amendment was proven false in the aftermath of the Civil War when Amendments were passed and then blatantly ignored without consequence for 70 years. After this abrogration of the Constitution it made less sense to use amendments to make fundamental changes and we moved to the British method.

Quite a good point, mikebert.

(09-07-2016, 01:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]But the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court decides what is to be regarded and what is not. The only "limits" (besides those stated in the bill of rights and other amendments) are spelled out in section 9 of article 1.

There were procedures written to change the constitution, including amendments and constitutional conventions.  These both involved the approval of a supermajority of states.  The Supreme Court was never intended to allow rewrites of the Constitution, but to interpret it.  

That means that they say what it means. Chief Justice Warren famously said, "the Constitution is what we say it is." He was right. They do defer a lot to precedent.

Quote:

(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That, as you know, is an improper and very conservative literal interpretation. Article 1, Section 8 says the congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the USA. Article 2 section 3 says that the president shall see that the laws are faithfully executed. The idea that such powers be limited to the needs of the 1780s as spelled out in the enumerated powers is a wrong interpretation, and such an interpretation could never meet the needs of the country. The constitution says the congress shall make laws necessary to carry out the enumerated powers and all other powers allowed under the constitution. It did not say that only the forgoing powers shall exist.

The theory on which the constitution was written is that the states remain sovereign powers, that the federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated.  This is why the powers were enumerated.  What you consider an 'improper and very conservative" interpretation is the interpretation used while the authors of the constitution were still alive.

As the proposed constitution was being ratified, there was a big debate on whether a Bill of Rights was necessary.  Some said no.  As the constitution did not enumerate a power to censor speech, what need was there for a Right of Free Speech?  As there was no enumerated power to regulate firearms, what need was there for a Right to Keep and Bear Arms?  While this logic seems sound enough, during the debates leading up to ratification, an awful lot of people wouldn't pass the new constitution without suspenders to go with the belt.  They wanted a Bill of Rights.  It didn't look like the Constitution would be ratified until both groups agreed that the first order of business would be to pass a Bill of Rights.  That this debate took place at all clearly indicated that the original intent of the authors was that the list of enumerated powers was intended to be meaningful and binding.

The "theory" doesn't matter, of course (we've had that debate before). What is written, and adopted by amendment or convention, and how the Court interprets it today, is what counts; what some people thought about it 250 years ago is too hard to determine without endless debate.
The constitution clearly says that the enumerated powers are not binding. That's what counts, and you did not contradict my quotes from the Constitution. Some of the founding fathers, most-notably Jefferson, wanted to protect peoples' rights, just as the French had done, and some of the colonies had done. So they decided to spell out those rights. Clearly the proponents thought that the enumerated powers did not limit the government's powers to those enumerated in Sec.8. Hence, a bill of rights was needed.

Quote:

(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I don't disagree with much there, but the idea that we should need to rewrite the constitution every time the president and congress agree to do something which goes beyond the enumerated powers, would mean we would have to convene such a convention as an ongoing body. The Constitution provides for making the laws that are needed for the needs of the time, without having to call conventions or make amendments all the time.

The original intent was not that the federal government would get to expand its power whenever it feels like expanding its power.  Expanding federal power was supposed to be ratified by a supermajority of states.  Granted, the founding fathers did not anticipate how technology would explode, that the Industrial Revolution would essentially render a document perfectly adequate for an essentially agricultural society quite obsolete.  At various times, the constitution was ignored because it was necessary.  At other times, it was ignored for more nefarious purposes.  The Jim Crow Supreme Court ruled that as the federal government is granted no police powers, it has no power to enforce the Bill of Rights.  Thus it was up to the southern states to protect the rights of negroes.  They...  didn't.

Constitutions are not supposed to go into bitter detail.  The Constitution is very short.  At this point, I would not add a new line saying the federal government shall have the power to dredge harbors.  I'd say it has the power to build and maintain interstate transportation infrastructure.  Or do we really want to give them that blanch a carte?  Still, the constitution for the European Union is much longer than ours.  An awful lot of issues have become important since the founding father's time.  I would like to see them seriously addressed.  I would badly like to see a return to a limited government whose powers are limited by law.  What we've got now is a runaway truck.

You are talking out of both sides. If the constitution should not go into "detail" but remain short, then it makes no sense to "return to a limited government whose powers are limited by law." As before, the constitution will have to be seen as living and flexible to meet the needs of the time, just as you said that a document conceived at the very end of the agricultural era would not suffice for an industrial and high tech era. So, further changes will render any such carefully enumerated and limited document moot within a short time. The 2nd Amendment itself was obsolete almost from the moment it was passed.

I don't know how a new constitution would limit the runaway power of the executive to wage war, when the power is not even granted to him in the constitution we have. I don't know how it could improve gun law, when all we have to do is observe what playwrite described. I don't think we need a new constitution so that we can build highways and dredge harbors; all we need is to recognize that these powers are already granted.

But the system needs serious changes, which might indeed require a convention, depending on how far we go. We need to outlaw money in politics; that will require an amendment to clarify that money is not "free speech." We need to end gerrymandering, but that needs no constitutional change, just a change in legislation. We may decide that only a parliamentary government, such as almost all other democracies have, provides better restraint on the president and a more unified government that can carry out a mandate, but be subject for an election whenever the leader says that the people call for it. That would call for a convention. We may switch to ranked choice voting and proportional representation; the former doesn't require a convention, but the latter might; I'm not sure. But the two party system is clearly out of date and the people don't want it. It may collapse, and ranked-choice voting and prop rep would ensure that a multi-party system allows all views some voice in what is decided, and that we are not reduced perpetually to the lesser of two evils. The conservatives have their pet proposals too, like a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto, and secession and rebellion may be around the corner too.

(09-07-2016, 03:23 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 09:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 06:56 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]Usually if everyone around you seems like an asshole, then the actual asshole is you.

Bingo!

What people say about the rest of humanity as a whole  says what that person is himself. One of the simplest tests for trustworthiness among retail sales clerks (people surrounded by all the accoutrements of wealth on the job, large amounts of money going into the till, much fabricated glamour,  yet so badly underpaid that they can never expect to get them) is to ask what proportion of humanity is generally trustworthy. The trustworthy people tell you that employee pilferage is done by very few people. The dishonest ones say in effect "Doesn't everyone steal?"

In mental wards many of the patients might tell you that they are the only sane person in the asylum.

I can only imagine what child molesters have to say about the 'normality' of their perversion.

If you really want people to expose the scorpions in their souls, then ask them about people of religion (especially Judaism) or ethnicity different from themselves.

Or it could be that some have been let down my so many people whether stealers or unreliable people that they assume people are just going to keep it up or have doubts that they will be reliable and show up on time. Experience is a teacher and not everything is black and white as it seems. For me, i am trust worthy and reliable because i like to be what many others seem to not be from so many letting me down. I always give them chances. Several in fact because I cannot judge that they will not be untrustworthy if i do not know them. But all too often people let me down. I txt the person that i am coming. Text when i am nearly there too and the place and exact time. I ended up with that behaviour early on because of so many not showing up. I put being trustworthy in everything (relationships, not stealing, being honest, not cheating on someone, sometimes it does make me quite blunt (hi Eric)). But do I trust others will be the same? No. Because from my experience only one person was like that with me. Everyone else, despite me giving them a chance to prove they value being honest and on time, are not and it is unfortunate.

There are criminal subcultures in America... people who see a job as an excuse for stealing. The thieves may be very reliable about coming in on time... the longer that they are at work, the more opportunity they have to fleece the employer, vendors, customers, or clients.

Those subcultures are tiny subsets of America, and not as a rule 'poor, oppressed minorities'. Those grifters include dopers.

Stores which pay little and expose employees to plentiful opportunities for pilferage, were looking for means of rejecting possible thieves without discriminating based upon race, the latter not a bona fide means of choosing between groups of workers and a potential cause of law suits for discrimination.

Drug tests, supposedly intended to cull out people who use drugs that compromise workplace safety and overall productivity, also cull out potential thieves. So many of us know enough to not have a poppy-seed bagel (which allegedly will give off a positive test for opiates) before taking a drug test. Dopers, whatever their ethnicity, are not only more accident-prone but also more likely to steal and have high rates of absenteeism. Use of drugs also correlates some to alcoholism.

Having worked in retail soon after graduating from college (d@mned undiagnosed Asperger's!), I can tell you that retail sales clerks are among the laziest, stupidest, materialistic, and hollowest people that you will ever meet in the workplace. Those who don't fit that pattern simply took the job in desperation and believe that it is easier to get a job elsewhere if one can work nights and weekends (employers find such people hard to find and will accommodate that) and interview for jobs by day. Some go into the work saying things like "I don't want to be a mere office clerk or assembly-line worker"... and three months later they are happy that they got a job as an office clerk or an assembly-line worker. Turnover is high enough that someone can often get into a low-level managerial job (with similar pay and more responsibility) within a year. But being a 'manager trainee' means little on a curriculum vitae. People who have any intellectual substance or work ethic don't stay on that job for long. "Office clerk" has more promise for someone with a college degree.

Id you wonder why the traditional department store has practically disappeared in America (Kohl's, one of the biggest chains in America, has gone to a grocery-style checkout, which may be good for thwarting shoplifting) ... it's because American shoppers have caught on. If you want good advice on merchandise at Wal*Mart, then ask a fellow customer.

A small sample of Trump's lies:

Lyin' Donald: 101 Of Trump's Greatest Lies
http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trump...nk-berrien


24. March 7: “You have Japan, where the cars come in by the hundreds of thousands, they pour off the boats. ... [W]e send them like nothing. We send them nothing, by comparison, nothing.” The United States exported $62 billion worth of goods to Japan last year.

25. March 7: “I’ve spent the least money and I’m by far number 1. So I’ve spent the least.” As of Jan. 31, Trump’s campaign had spent $23.9 million, more than John Kasich’s campaign, which has spent $7.2 million, or $19.5 million if you include outside groups supporting him.

26. March 7: Trump says you don’t see “Made in the USA” anymore. As POLITICO reported: “The U.S. Economics and Statistics Administra’ in 2014 that found that U.S. manufacturers sold $4.4 trillion of goods that classify as ‘Made in the U.S.A.’”

27. March 7: “I’m self-funding my campaign. I’m not taking money. ... I’m not taking. I spent a lot of money. I don’t take.” As of Jan. 31, his campaign had accepted $7.5 million from donors not named Donald J. Trump.

28. March 7: Boasting he had spent $30 million on his campaign: “I’m already in for $30 million cash.” According to POLITICO, “As of then he had only contributed $250,318, plus the loan of $17.5 million.

29. March 7: “I think I have $50 million of negative ads against me in Florida. $50 million. Somebody said $50 million.” As of March 11, outside groups had spent $15 million in Florida.

30. March 3: Trump claims the wives of the 9/11 hijackers "knew exactly what was happening" and returned to Saudi Arabia two days before the attacks to watch their husbands on television flying the planes. The 9/11 Commission report stated that none of the hijackers had a wife, girlfriend or family member in the United States during the days or months leading up to the hijackings.

31. February 28: Trump claims that the New York Times can write a false story without being sued, snapping, “I think it's very unfair when the New York Times can write a story that they know is false, that they virtually told me they know it's false, and I say, why don't you pull the story, and they say, we're not going to do that, because they can't basically be sued.” the unanimous 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan states that the First Amendment does not protect statements made with "actual malice.”

32. February 29, after his Nevada win: Trump brags that he is “number one with Hispanics.” Except 93 percent of the Latinos in Nevada did not support Trump. A Washington Post-Univision poll in February found that 80% of registered Hispanic voters viewed Trump unfavorably.

33. February 28: "We (Trump University) have an ‘A’ from the Better Business Bureau." In reality, BBB received multiple consumer complaints about Trump university, which sank to a D-minus in 2010. The reason Trump University rose to an A in July 2014 was that as the company looked to be closing after 2013, no new complaints were reported. Complaints over three years old automatically rolled off of the business review, according to BBB policy. Further, Trump University was never been a BBB-accredited business. When debate moderators were given a document by the Trump campaign, it could not have been an actual Better Business Bureau accreditation notice for Trump University.

34. February 28, with Chris Wallace: Trump claimed that “many of” the university’s instructors were “handpicked” by him. That’s not true. In a 2012 deposition, a top executive for Trump University said that “none of our instructors” was picked by Trump himself.

35. February 28, with Wallace: Trump said that “98 percent of the people that took the courses … thought they were terrific.” A class-action lawsuit against Trump alleges that the surveys were not anonymous and were filled out during or immediately after sessions when participants were still expecting to receive future benefits from the program.

36. February 28: “I don’t know anything about David Duke,” to Jake Tapper. Trump not only has mentioned Duke in the past but actually repudiated him during a Bloomberg interview in August 2015. Fifteen years ago, when Trump was considering running for president as a Reform Party candidate, he named Duke a cause for concern. “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party,” he said.

37. February 25, on Trump University: “I’ve won most of the lawsuits.” Not true, as The Washington Post has noted.

38. February 25 debate: Lying about his support for national health care. Cruz says, “Donald, true or false, you’ve said the government should pay for everyone’s health care.” Trump: “That’s false.” Cruz: “But you’ve never stood on this debate stage and says it works great in Canada and Scotland and we should do it here?” Trump’s response? “No, I did not. No I did not.” Trump told 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley in September 2015 that he’d “take care of everybody” and that the government would pay for it. In the first Republican debate of the election season, Trump stated, “As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland.”

39. February 25 debate: Trump accused Cruz of lying regarding his support for toppling Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, saying, “He said I was in favor in Libya. I never discussed that subject. I was in favor of Libya? We would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now.” Buzzfeed published a 2011 video of Trump in which he called to get rid of Gaddafi.

(09-07-2016, 01:29 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 01:20 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]All have their strengths and weaknesses. What amazes me is how polarized it can get over there. Especially culturally at times. I have never seen anything quite like it.

That is what happens when you try to make everyone and everything the same through government force.  Unless you have a homogeneous society, which the US has never really had, it tends to go this way.  Everyone tries to get the ring for himself.  If you want to get an idea of how limited the Federal Government was supposed to be I would suggest reading the US Constitution and then take a good hard look at what it does today.

First, you obviously have no idea what mass conformity is like, since you've never experienced it.  I have, and it's nothing like the society of today.  Mass conformity was the 1950s core paradigmatic feature.  Deviation was punished by social shunning, because most people were happy conformists.

Second, citing the US Constitution as a guide for modern life is only slightly more apropos than citing the Bible.  Both are products of a bygone age, and need to be revised or ignored.  Even the most brilliant thoughts of Agricultural Age geniuses fails the test of prescience.  Yes, they understood human foibles, but could not even imagine the capabilities their future has generated that have made once universal goods, such as enforced deliberation and slow governance, into high risk ventures.  Apparently, you can't either.

Libertarian governance is an oxymoron.  The House of representatives has made a valiant effort at governing by doing nothing, and the results are apparent.

(09-07-2016, 01:56 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]The kiwi Terror Marie! I like this title. It rhymes and i shall use it in future posts!

I guess you need a different avatar. 

(09-07-2016, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 02:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Being a fairly typical liberal, I would probably agree with you (if you say) that the president has usurped war-making power, using the phrase "commander in chief" and forgetting the power of congress to declare war.

Since the preamble includes "promote the general welfare" as an aim for the federal government, and allows the congress to make such laws as it deems necessary, I would disagree with you (if you say) that the federal government has no right to collect taxes for the purpose of investing in infrastructure or providing relief and assistance to the needy.

I note that my perspective is not limited to "Boomers."

Words in the preamble should not be interpreted as changing the meaning of specific lines in the body of a constitution.  There was a clear intent to limit the powers of the federal government which the Supreme Court has disregarded.

The first major disagreement on this line came when the north wanted to use federal funds to dredge harbors, while others declared that dredging harbors was not the same as building post roads.  Dredging is not authorized by the Constitution, but maintaining post roads is.  The intent of the authors is quite clear.  These days, any infrastructure improvement is improperly accepted as proper.

Inflating federal power was certainly not started by boomers.  It started well before the Civil War.  A lot of the recent disregard for limited powers started with FDR.  The Great Depression was an urgent emergency.  He couldn't wait for the amendment process.  He just did stuff, struggling with a conservative Supreme Court, often getting slapped down early, but in time as the People kept reelecting him, the Supremes caved in.  I can sympathize with much of what was done in FDRs time.  There was much need.  However, the tradition of ignoring the Constitution was taken to a new level which is problematic.  It isn't just the liberals who do it.

If a Supreme Court full of Scalia style strict interpretation advocates were suddenly to start ruling on the Constitution as written, a constitutional convention would have to be called promptly.  We no longer have an effective written constitution.  I'm inclined to think we should have a convention anyway.  Either party, given a majority on the court, will start pulling stuff like Citizen's United.  This is not the time for a convention.  The country is too divided to agree on anything.  The time for a convention is the 4T 1T cusp, just after the crisis has provided lessons learned, when the mood of the country is no more changes, but set the recent changes in stone.

I don't have much patience for the concept of a rigid Constitution, which, after all, was written in a different age and not suitable to the one we currently occupy.  That said, I'm not sure what alternative would be best.  I tend to favor a controlling document with a 50 year life, that forces a total review of the basic governing rules on a regular basis -- no automatic renewal!  That may not be better, but that or something similar deserves a try. The current document, brilliant as it was, is woefully out of date.

(09-07-2016, 01:48 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Are you familiar the view that the US is like the UK, with what effectively is a virtual constitution?

https://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2013/12/...l-history/

The original concept of constitutional change by Amendment was proven false in the aftermath of the Civil War when Amendments were passed and then blatantly ignored without consequence for 70 years. After this abrogation of the Constitution it made less sense to use amendments to make fundamental changes and we moved to the British method.

I don't think we regarded the formal amendment process all that seriously at any point.  Human nature is not easily swayed by argument, and the few major issue-altering amendments have always been controversial.  Most amendments involve widely accepted ideas that needed to be formalized or more mundane administrative matters that needed clarity or justification.  XIII, XIV and XV are in the first group.  XVI (income tax) probably belongs in the second.

I don't see the amendment process being a viable method to modernize this aging document.  Anything of true importance will be stymied by the process, since all change harms someone, but change is needed from time to time.

(09-07-2016, 05:12 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 12:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]If everyone seemed like an asshole to him, he wouldn't be able to single out the vegans and bicyclists.

He claimed that every vegan is a "militant vegan", which is a good indicator that he's a jerk who pisses people off and then turns around and accuses them of being easily offended fanatics.

I see that you still have reading comprehension issues.  I have yet to meet anything other than a militant vegan which leaves open the possibility, unlikely as it seems, of meeting one that isn't.

(09-09-2016, 03:18 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 05:12 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 12:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]If everyone seemed like an asshole to him, he wouldn't be able to single out the vegans and bicyclists.

He claimed that every vegan is a "militant vegan", which is a good indicator that he's a jerk who pisses people off and then turns around and accuses them of being easily offended fanatics.

I see that you still have reading comprehension issues.  I have yet to meet anything other than a militant vegan which leaves open the possibility, unlikely as it seems, of meeting one that isn't.

Perhaps the culture is very different in your part of the world, but I can't recall encountering a vegan who tried to convert me in an aggressive or irritating way.  The issue just isn't on my radar.  This does make me wonder if the cultures are that different or whether you are more sensitive to the issue than I.

I'll throw out the idea that partisan thinkers aren't very tolerant?  At least the partisan thinkers on these boards?  Here, I'm a member of that obnoxious boomer class of humanoids that is much hated and detested.  I don't have that problem at all in the real world, any more than I have with vegans.  Are we just attracting haters?

(09-09-2016, 04:31 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2016, 04:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2016, 03:18 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 05:12 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 12:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]If everyone seemed like an asshole to him, he wouldn't be able to single out the vegans and bicyclists.

He claimed that every vegan is a "militant vegan", which is a good indicator that he's a jerk who pisses people off and then turns around and accuses them of being easily offended fanatics.

I see that you still have reading comprehension issues.  I have yet to meet anything other than a militant vegan which leaves open the possibility, unlikely as it seems, of meeting one that isn't.

Perhaps the culture is very different in your part of the world, but I can't recall encountering a vegan who tried to convert me in an aggressive or irritating way.  The issue just isn't on my radar.  This does make me wonder if the cultures are that different or whether you are more sensitive to the issue than I.

I'll throw out the idea that partisan thinkers aren't very tolerant?  At least the partisan thinkers on these boards?  Here, I'm a member of that obnoxious boomer class of humanoids that is much hated and detested.  I don't have that problem at all in the real world, any more than I have with vegans.  Are we just attracting haters?

I have seen vegans like that so I know what he means. What do you mean you are a member of the obnoxious boomer class of humanoids that is hated and detested? What for? Being a boomer? I have heard elsewhere that forums like this one attract haters. Which is why many moved elsewhere.

Yep...  for being a boomer.  Many boomers are intense and idealistic.  Some younger folk are tired of it, and blame boomer stubborn partisan idealism for the inability of government to get anything done.  There is some truth in it, but the partisan stagnation goes across the generation boundaries.  The generations might have different styles of making sure nothing gets done, but we're all in it.

I know about generation gaps.  In my youth, a famous blue boomer motto was "Don't trust anyone over thirty.", meaning the GIs and Silents.  When we were up in arms about gender, race, peace and the environment, the elders who tolerated and pushed the status quo were seen as responsible for the status quo, deserving of blame and scorn.  The classic awakening generation gap was blue boomer vs GI.

But these days the awakening divide has shifted into red and blue, rural and urban.  There are red and blue folks in all age groups.  I'd rather focus on red / blue differences than age groups.  Perhaps the younger folks are seeing the Boomers as being the senior in charge generation and thus are to blame for existing problems and lack of action, much as we used to view the GIs.

But I see the generation hate far more here than in the real world.  Keep an eye out and you'll see it.  I'm not out to point fingers or name names.  Perhaps someone into generation hate will step forward and give you a demonstration.

(09-09-2016, 06:55 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2016, 06:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep...  for being a boomer.  Many boomers are intense and idealistic.  Some younger folk are tired of it, and blame boomer stubborn partisan idealism for the inability of government to get anything done.  There is some truth in it, but the partisan stagnation goes across the generation boundaries.  The generations might have different styles of making sure nothing gets done, but we're all in it.

I know about generation gaps.  In my youth, a famous blue boomer motto was "Don't trust anyone over thirty.", meaning the GIs and Silents.  When we were up in arms about gender, race, peace and the environment, the elders who tolerated and pushed the status quo were seen as responsible for the status quo, deserving of blame and scorn.  The classic awakening generation gap was blue boomer vs GI.

But these days the awakening divide has shifted into red and blue, rural and urban.  There are red and blue folks in all age groups.  I'd rather focus on red / blue differences than age groups.  Perhaps the younger folks are seeing the Boomers as being the senior in charge generation and thus are to blame for existing problems and lack of action, much as we used to view the GIs.

But I see the generation hate far more here than in the real world.  Keep an eye out and you'll see it.  I'm not out to point fingers or name names.  Perhaps someone into generation hate will step forward and give you a demonstration.

Yes it is due to the fact they are the largest generation in power compared to the gen xers who are a smaller generation. If any generation was able to really make a difference it would be a larger generation pulling together to make progress happen. I do not care for generational bashing but that would be the reason why they are viewed that way. Yes younger folk see that generation on the whole as corrupt. Too corrupt and too busy fighting to cooperate. Does that mean that does not happen with younger folk? Not at all. But boomers are the seniors in charge who lack action. So they are blamed. I have mentioned several times here i despise finger pointing at generations as it prevents action being taken or at the very least is non productive and divides us further. I would rather solve problems and with action preferably. Which is what I do on a daily basis especially with the SVA.

The boomers might be a big generation, but we're not able to start a regeneracy by ourselves.  We are also notoriously divided.  As boomers age out of voting and youngsters age in, the demographics are shifting blue.  If one is waiting for a progressive awakening, there is some reason to hope, but the boomers aren't apt to change that much at our age.  I'm looking to the youngsters.  Still, recent tradition in Washington DC is to freely use the filibuster.  As long as that sticks, it will be hard to kick things off.

In general, yes, blaming the elders for the way things have been is understandable.  Still, the blue boomers have done their share and more at pushing for change, but the red boomers have pushed as hard in the other direction.  If one doesn't like the results, I'd rather see the blame placed on one group or the other rather than both groups broadly.

What is it that needs to be done?  Who is pushing for it?  Who is blocking it?

I also find the style of argument is more distinct than the policies being advocated.  Boomers will argue from ideals.  X'ers might be more abrasive, angry and plain spoken.  It's a distinction in culture and style.  Just the way each age group presents their ideas ticks the other age group off.  I don't know that either culture is apt to change, but working up a head full of hate over the style of presentation doesn't seem overly productive.

In the two above posts, Bob Butler has lurched uncontrollably into the truth.

(as the late John McLaughlin used to say)

Who's scandals are worse? You decide.

You can't threaten people with something they actually WANT! The infamous "taco trucks on every corner," and other hallmarks of Trump's appeal to make Mexico and Africa great again also.

(09-09-2016, 10:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]In the two above posts, Bob Butler has lurched uncontrollably into the truth.

(as the late John McLaughlin used to say)

I'm not sure where the "lurched uncontrollably" comes from.  I was trying for more 'plain spoken' less 'idealistic' while avoiding 'abrasive and angry'.  

Hey, when your post is addressed to "Kiwi Terror Marie", one tries to be nice!    Simple self defense!