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

(10-20-2016, 11:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2016, 07:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

The Bill of Rights Wrote:IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This had traditionally meant that if a right existed in the colonial era as part of Common Law, the fact that it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights shouldn't mean the Common Law right should be disregarded.  Living Constitution advocates are advocating five old men being able to invent brand new rights, including rights for corporations, and including rights that definitively did not exist under colonial Common Law, rights that are in direct conflict with colonial Common Law.

I can say that in general progressive justices rewriting the Constitution from the bench generally have their hearts in the right place.  Alas, to the extent they have made the Constitution worthless, the conservative justices have been just as abusive, only it is corporate wallets they are concerned with.  I would as soon the Court honor their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

But -- the States have no right to deny rights as the Constitution defines them and the Supreme Court determines them. As an example, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the right to travel; so far as I can tell, travel for criminal purposes or for violation of terms of a military enlistment might violate laws.

The Right to Travel is a legitimate part of English Common Law.  There were no internal passports in colonial times, no laws where citizens had to seek permission to travel.  This is a legitimate exercise of the Ninth, pretty much.  One is extrapolating from the lack of laws at a given time a limitation on the power of the legislature to write such laws in the future.  The policies of the colonial era might be made permanent by saying if something wasn't regulated then, it can't be regulated now or ever.  For instance, there were no laws in colonial times saying where one could fly one's airplane.  Does this mean the FAA is unconstitutional?  

The first Congress knew they hadn't covered every right exercised at the time in the first eight amendments, and put in the Ninth to cover it.  Travel is a reasonably valid use of the Ninth.

But there were laws against sodomy.  The Supreme Court when inventing new rights from the bench should not act in direct conflict with English Common Law.  The Constitution should not mean whatever five old men want it to mean.  One should not be on the bench if one is not going to take the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution seriously.  From my point of view, deliberately sodomizing the Constitution ought to be the equivalent of treason, an impeachable offense.

(10-20-2016, 12:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

She'll never reach the Republican base that way...

Stephen Colbert analyzes the 3rd debate. "This doesn't do any good for anyone"

"FROM MY TINY TINY HANDS!!!!"

(10-20-2016, 04:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Which explains why so called Neo Cons...

NeoCONs + thought to strategy = oxymoron.   Since we have a list   , we can set up a draft where every one of these losers gets assigned to a combat role in Syria, up front and personal.




(or any one else who have given even the slightest thought to strategy) are no longer part of the Republican base!



Oh, I have a grand strategy and it's awesome and righteous.

1. End the war on drugs and abolish the DEA.
2. Complete pull out in Afghanistan.  AKA the grave yard of empires.
3. Complete pull out of Syria.
4. Complete pull out of Iraq.
5. Close all military bases in the MENA area.
6. Use funds saved to fund Manhatten Project 2.0 green energy conversion here in the States.
7. 2nd round of base closing in Continental Europe.
8. Wind down NATO. 
a. War is now a losing proposition. Any sane group of people would not want to expend any effort to acquire a green glowing ashtray region.
b. If humans can't control their lizard brains and go to some major atomic war anyway, we're a dead end species lacking in any virtue.  Rats and roaches deserve to inherit the earth in that case.
9. Big BRAC. Close down all military bases not within our 200 mile EJT.

(10-20-2016, 04:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Stephen Colbert analyzes the 3rd debate. "This isn't going to do any good for anyone"

1. Why are their 2 flags?
2. I think the debates need far more geographic diversity. The next debates in 2020 all need to be held in Tulsa, OK.

(10-20-2016, 10:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2016, 04:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Stephen Colbert analyzes the 3rd debate. "This isn't going to do any good for anyone"

1. Why are their 2 flags?

Why not?

(10-21-2016, 01:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2016, 10:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2016, 04:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Stephen Colbert analyzes the 3rd debate. "This isn't going to do any good for anyone"

1. Why are their 2 flags?

Why not?

I think the use of the US flag is way overdone not only on Stephen Colbert's stuff, but in general. The US flag as such is a symbol.   I have no idea what Colbert is using the flag to symbolize.  It's pretty much like having flags at mosh pits.  The US flag and moshpits go together like pickles mixed with cola drinks.   And politicians and pundits who wear those flag lapels are essentially like wearing a fresh pickle on their jacket.

(10-21-2016, 02:03 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the use of the US flag is way overdone not only on Stephen Colbert's stuff, but in general. The US flag as such is a symbol.   I have no idea what Colbert is using the flag to symbolize.  It's pretty much like having flags at mosh pits.  The US flag and moshpits go together like pickles mixed with cola drinks.   And politicians and pundits who wear those flag lapels are essentially like wearing a fresh pickle on their jacket.

Flags and other patriotic symbols are overdone in general during the entire campaign process. Every campaign stop, convention, debate or whatever is apt to be done on red, white and blue sets with flags and/or text of founding documents as the backdrop. Colbert's parody debate set was actually pretty mild compared to the real thing. Cheap. Blue backdrops and a couple of flags set the tone at a reasonable cost.

(10-21-2016, 02:03 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016, 01:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2016, 10:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2016, 04:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Stephen Colbert analyzes the 3rd debate. "This isn't going to do any good for anyone"

1. Why are their 2 flags?

Why not?

I think the use of the US flag is way overdone not only on Stephen Colbert's stuff, but in general. The US flag as such is a symbol.   I have no idea what Colbert is using the flag to symbolize.  It's pretty much like having flags at mosh pits.  The US flag and moshpits go together like pickles mixed with cola drinks.   And politicians and pundits who wear those flag lapels are essentially like wearing a fresh pickle on their jacket.

I don't disagree, but I think in some cases it's OK. It shows interest in the country. In this case, it probably just means that he's talking about the election, but I'm not a regular viewer of Colbert. Does he show the flag for every show?

I think the national anthem is overdone. I don't know why we have to hear it before every ballgame. Bravo to Colin. I wrote new words to the national anthem btw, and have gotten good reviews for it. And also "God Bless America" is a rather kooky song. And politicians saying "and God Bless the United States of America" after every speech is over-the-top. Why should God's blessings stop at the border, and how can a politician order God to bless only an area inside a man-made border?

Bill Maher says he can't run for office like his fellow TV star partly because atheists have the lowest rating in opinion polls. It's politics.

The fate of democracy rests in..........whose hands?

Ah, Seth is back from another of his little vacations; I'm so happy, what would we do without him!

And Donald has Leo Rising; Leos are pussies, aren't they? lions? felines?

I've been tough on Trump. But there will come a time for healing. Trump is a brawler, and after the brawls he makes up.

Donald Trump is an interesting fellow. I thought of a way he could be even more interesting, and maybe even useful.

He's going to lose the election. According to Grant Lewi, he's at the place in life represented by Saturn in his 4th house, the Nadir of Fortune, and it's also conjunct his Moon and opposing his Sun. That means, "a new start." Something ends and something begins.

He can become Bernie Sanders.

He has fostered a movement. Millions are riled up and aroused by his words and his peculiar charisma. What does he do with it?

The comedians made mince meat of his lines at the Al Smith Dinner that fell flat; that were too cutting instead of funny. But he did have some good self-directed humor too. They both had some good lines. And afterward, although others focused on the bitterness, Donald and Hillary shook hands. Donald complimented her on her speech, and Hillary said they could work together after the election. My thought is, maybe they can.

Bernie and Hillary are working together, and they agreed on a platform and policies for real change.

So Donald Trump has a choice. He can gripe and accuse and threaten and keep his people angry and arouse them to potential violence. Or he can join with Hillary and Bernie to make the changes that we need, and take his people with him.

He and his followers could be a powerful influence on his Party in Congress too.

Donald Trump is a showman, and his campaign was mostly just an act. He had to adopt the ideas of the Republicans in order to run in their party and be an agent of change. But Hillary is the agent of real change now, and she'll need support in order to make the change. She'll need prodding to stay on the path of genuine progress, instead of deferring to the wealthy experts on Wall Street and the Pentagon and the political powers behind the scenes. She needs Bernie to bring his movement along in this great change, and she needs Donald to bring HIS movement along too.

Besides the positions he took just to fit in to the Party he ran in, he could go back to saying what he used to say. He can ditch the Republican trickle-down economics, the militarism and the culture war issues like abortion. He can atone for his bigoted remarks, and say he didn't mean them; it was really just his act to arouse a certain segment of the people to rise up for change, and the act is over. And he has some good ideas; ideas that Hillary's supporters mostly agree with too. He's even said that we all want the same things. We need to reform and restrict lobbying and take money out of politics. We need to negotiate better trade deals. Donald and Bernie can push and support Hillary to make these changes. They can help keep her away from the temptation to start a regime-change war. All three want to help our struggling working class recover and to build the things we need. All three want to improve the health care reform.

So I pray for Donald Trump. He is a talented leader. I pray that he'll see the light, and join Bernie to help Hillary make progress and make revolution.

Can John top Seth? I think so!





And he continues here (unless the video is deleted!) to show why my choice of "Goldfinger" as Trump's theme song is so appropriate. Look what John offers to place in Trump's little fingers.





Last line censored: "take the fucking bet!"

Donald Trump -- Juan Peron without the military shtick.

It took me a second to notice how ridiculous this is:

(10-26-2016, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It took me a second to notice how ridiculous this is:

Did he consult Rachel Dolezal to find out how to add some black people to the crowd? You know -- fake tans, cafe-au-lait to teak, and fake Afros?

Like all other demagogues, Donald Trump is all things to all people. There's nothing liberal about him. There's nothing Christian about him. We liberals are the first to recognize him for the political fraud that he is, and he has broken with us forever. He wants us irrelevant forever. Conservative Christians will find out how un-Christian he is should he be elected, and very fast.

I would far prefer to see Mitt Romney getting a Reagan-1984 win of re-election than see Donald Trump get elected barely.

America really needs some sane, humane conservatism, the sort that recognizes that the common man needs something worthy of conserving. Like bank accounts and low-cost undergraduate education. That sane conservatism promotes small-scale entrepreneurialism with tax laws that favor small-scale business over vertically-integrated, monopolized trusts and cartels. That sane conservatism promotes high-quality education that keeps promotes rational thought and selfless conscience that allows people to recognize demagogues like Donald Trump for the untrustworthy liars that they are instead of wish-fulfillment.

Take nothing for granted. Donald Trump tells us that the Democrats will rig the 2016 Presidential election. That should warn all of us of ho0w he intends to be elected. He will need to rig the election to become President.