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

Love is not rational. Neither are most aesthetic judgments. Neither are the basic moral imperatives such as "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal". Nobody can live on pure reason.

When it comes to the needful collective decisions, rationality becomes necessary. Non-rational choices lead to economic failure and ethical calamities. If I am to undergo surgery, then I do not want a flake as a surgeon.

I prefer that politicians not make contradictory promises that they can never fulfill even if they try, and that implode if they try. Logical contradictions almost always result in falsity... as Donald Trump shows.

We liberals have quit playing games. We are like the seals that lead a hungry great white shark intent on devouring us toward an even hungrier killer whale.

(01-13-2020, 11:21 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Hint...Irrational people don't deserve much rational thought and responding to irrational people doesn't require thought either. He's playing tit for tat with irrational liberals and never Trump and he's winning by showing America how irrational the two of them really are these days. The funny thing is that the folks that he's been playing liberal games with are supposed to be professionals.

By lying?  By changing his lies day by day until he finds a lie that works?  Trump would only be convincing the irrational people, which are more apt to be his base than liberal. More likely to be unskeptical clueless believers.

I will try again to say something I have said many times before in different ways.  The old world and the new took different paths.  East Europe and Asia took an unfortunate diversion into fascist, nazi, and communist philosophies.  While fascist and communist philosophies may be rated as very different along the left - right axis, both attempted to reap the technical benefits of the industrial revolution while not touching the benefits of the Enlightenment.  They remained autocratic, ignoring things like democracy, division of power and human rights.

The English speaking West took a very different path.  They embraced both elements of technology and Enlightenment political virtues.

Attempts do describe Western systems using old world terminology fail.  Pretending to not be able to see the difference between the two systems is pretending to be ignorant.  Really being not able to see the difference between the two systems is to be really ignorant.

Socialist?  That sort of means government for the people, which is hardly an insult.  The problem is that the old world groups that called themselves socialist were more often not socialist by the above definition.  They were for their own elites, the party, those that controlled the means of production.  Therefore, they failed.  They could not compete with the West, and have not yet learned, repeating their mistake.  Their current attempts to mix capitalism with autocracy will eventually run into similar problems.  In the process of their lie about being socialists, however, they put an ugly connotation on the word.  If I thought you weren’t playing on the ugliness I would not object very much to the word.  There is really nothing wrong with a government that is trying to work for the people as opposed to a party that thinks themselves above the law.

(01-13-2020, 09:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 04:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 10:31 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not yours to own.  And please, let's agree that dirty tricks are the GOP's stock in trade.  The Dems and other non-party liberal groups are rank amateurs.  BTW, threats,, implied or direct, have negative consequences.  You need to tone it down.  Remarkable as it may be to you, liberals are both patriotic and brave.  If you actually start a civil war, be prepared to lose it.  That's how it played last time.

And I Have been noting the ‘terrorism is not the way to change America’ meme seen first with Oklahoma City, then with September 11th.  Both parties rejected terrorism, and both bases followed suit.  Classic seem to be obsessed with the old Industrial Age love of violence, not ready to switch to the major legislative bill approach.  Violence in the form of a civil war or revolution used to be required for a major cultural change, but has not been necessary in the USA domestically since the New Deal.  The spiral of violence is not escalating.  I am not anticipating violence making a comeback now.  Crisis wars are an age out.

We needed a real old fashioned  revolutionary to get rid of British rule and establish a new form of government that we are still associated with today. I take pride in my personal relationship (American ancestors) with  those who played an active role in that great endeavor and all future endeavors that followed it. Classic understands that violence is still being  used by others and becomes necessary to use at times.        Did the 9/11 attack shock you as much as it shocked me that morning? True, terrorism is not the way to change America. I don't know whether the major legislature approach or Bernie approach will work to change it either at this point.

I had a number of revolutionary war soldiers in my ancestry, and at least one civil war soldier. I am related distantly to Abe Lincoln. I don't know of any political leaders of those years in my ancestry. Most of my lines came to America from Britain in the 17th century; some German lines in the 1850s. Some French and Dutch earlier. None more recent. So I am an "American."

I noticed that the slogans and banting about of the word "American" became very prominent among those who opposed the protests to the Vietnam War. An "American Independent" party came into being in 1968 led by George Wallace spouting the slogan "Stand Up for America!" and he chose a militant general Le May as his running mate who advocated dropping nucs on Vietnam. In the next election much of that party became the "American" party and is now known as the "Constitution" party, although in CA the name "American Independent" stuck and is still used today. It has usually run third party candidates resembling Wallace, but in 2016 it endorsed Trump, whose policies were identical with theirs.

These are your predecessors in the use of the slogan "we are the Americans" and us liberals are not, because these conservative "Americans" thought we liberals should not have protested the war. We thought that it was better for us to have our country do the right thing, instead of pursuing wanton mass killing in the hopes that we could kill more Vietnamese than the communist regime could resupply themselves with. They said instead that it's "our country right or wrong" and "love it or leave it." We loved America; that's why we wanted it to correct course and stop sending young, courageous, excellent boomer soldiers home in body bags for a mistake.


The slogan has stuck among folks like you. The great divide in our country today descends from those great debates in the late 1960s. You "Americans" believe we should respect and stick with traditional values like "free enterprise" and Christianity and oppose reform efforts like gun control because of the "right" to bear arms in the constitution as you interpret it. We liberals continue to believe that true patriotism consists of reforming traditional ways so our society works better for all, and that "free enterprise" slogans boost the power of the wealthy bosses to exploit the people and harm life. 

We liberal patriots have a progressive tradition that goes back to the founding of the country, when WE were the ones who rose up for freedom, not YOU. WE were the real Americans then too, while the conservative Tories fled the country and preferred the tradition of being English colonists. The progressives were the ones who opposed slavery and achieved victory in the civil war, while you "Americans" rebelled and seceded from America. We progressives were the ones who in the 1900s passed the first laws to restrain and break up the power of the bosses, which today you "Americans" want to reimpose upon us. We liberal progressives were the ones that reformed the economic system to restrain speculation by the financiers that created the depression, and WE progressives created social security and boosted unions and passed other programs to protect the people from the bosses that you today support. WE progressives fought and stood up for the rights of all Americans in the sixties, while you "Americans" wanted to preserve segregation and discrimination, and you are an ally at least of those who still do.

(01-14-2020, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I had a number of revolutionary war soldiers in my ancestry, and at least one civil war soldier. I am related distantly to Abe Lincoln. I don't know of any political leaders of those years in my ancestry. Most of my lines came to America from Britain in the 17th century; some German lines in the 1850s. Some French and Dutch earlier. None more recent. So I am an "American."

For a while I was into genealogy.  Our ancestors include veterans of the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War,  WW I, and WW2.  We had a major line that settled in Hingham MA way back in the 1600s that is the best documented and populated.  We are are all over the book History of Hingham.  (One married couple had only one pair of grandparents between them.  They sure had a smaller taboo against intermarrying back then.). I can match your distant kinship to Lincoln, and raise you four people who sailed on the Mayflower.  (My nephew lives near Mordici Lincoln Street, a Lincoln ancestor who stayed in Scituate MA for a time.)  Other French, Norwegian, and similar lines tend to end as they cross the Atlantic, truncating them.  Each nationality seemed to stick among their own kind until 1900 or so, then seemed to intermarry among Europeans quite a bit, creating all those lines.

Anyway, I haven't identified as "American," but as purebred mongrel.  Same thing?

See the Butlers of Brockton if you are really curious.

(01-14-2020, 12:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Love is not rational. Neither are most aesthetic judgments. Neither are the basic moral imperatives such as "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal". Nobody can live on pure reason.

When it comes to the needful collective decisions, rationality becomes necessary. Non-rational choices lead to economic failure and ethical calamities. If I am to undergo surgery, then I do not want a flake as a surgeon.

I prefer that politicians not make contradictory promises that they can never fulfill even if they try, and that implode if they try. Logical contradictions almost always result in falsity... as Donald Trump shows.

We liberals have quit playing games. We are like the seals that lead a hungry great white shark intent on devouring us toward an even hungrier killer whale.

Are you saying liberals are bait/prey? Do hungry killer whales eat seals too? Are you saying that love doesn't come with conditions and expectations or dreams attached to it? Hint..My wife's love isn't the same as my mothers love. I see obvious signs of irrational thought.

(01-14-2020, 06:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I had a number of revolutionary war soldiers in my ancestry, and at least one civil war soldier. I am related distantly to Abe Lincoln. I don't know of any political leaders of those years in my ancestry. Most of my lines came to America from Britain in the 17th century; some German lines in the 1850s. Some French and Dutch earlier. None more recent. So I am an "American."

For a while I was into genealogy.  Our ancestors include veterans of the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War,  WW I, and WW2.  We had a major line that settled in Hingham MA way back in the 1600s that is the best documented and populated.  We are are all over the book History of Hingham.  (One married couple had only one pair of grandparents between them.  They sure had a smaller taboo against intermarrying back then.). I can match your distant kinship to Lincoln, and raise you four people who sailed on the Mayflower.  (My nephew lives near Mordici Lincoln Street, a Lincoln ancestor who stayed in Scituate MA for a time.)  Other French, Norwegian, and similar lines tend to end as they cross the Atlantic, truncating them.  Each nationality seemed to stick among their own kind until 1900 or so, then seemed to intermarry among Europeans quite a bit, creating all those lines.

Anyway, I haven't identified as "American," but as purebred mongrel.  Same thing?

See the Butlers of Brockton if you are really curious.

It just goes to show that those who question the authority of the Republicans are "Americans." My ancestors included Mayflower folks too. Mordecai Lincoln is my direct ancestor. No WWI or WWII soldiers, though; my father was a pacifist CO in the big one, and a co-founder of the first listener-supported radio station in the nation, KPFA (Pacifica Foundation).

(01-14-2020, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I had a number of revolutionary war soldiers in my ancestry, and at least one civil war soldier. I am related distantly to Abe Lincoln. I don't know of any political leaders of those years in my ancestry. Most of my lines came to America from Britain in the 17th century; some German lines in the 1850s. Some French and Dutch earlier. None more recent. So I am an "American."

I noticed that the slogans and banting about of the word "American" became very prominent among those who opposed the protests to the Vietnam War. An "American Independent" party came into being in 1968 led by George Wallace spouting the slogan "Stand Up for America!" and he chose a militant general Le May as his running mate who advocated dropping nucs on Vietnam. In the next election much of that party became the "American" party and is now known as the "Constitution" party, although in CA the name "American Independent" stuck and is still used today. It has usually run third party candidates resembling Wallace, but in 2016 it endorsed Trump, whose policies were identical with theirs.

These are your predecessors in the use of the slogan "we are the Americans" and us liberals are not, because these conservative "Americans" thought we liberals should not have protested the war. We thought that it was better for us to have our country do the right thing, instead of pursuing wanton mass killing in the hopes that we could kill more Vietnamese than the communist regime could resupply themselves with. They said instead that it's "our country right or wrong" and "love it or leave it." We loved America; that's why we wanted it to correct course and stop sending young, courageous, excellent boomer soldiers home in body bags for a mistake.


The slogan has stuck among folks like you. The great divide in our country today descends from those great debates in the late 1960s. You "Americans" believe we should respect and stick with traditional values like "free enterprise" and Christianity and oppose reform efforts like gun control because of the "right" to bear arms in the constitution as you interpret it. We liberals continue to believe that true patriotism consists of reforming traditional ways so our society works better for all, and that "free enterprise" slogans boost the power of the wealthy bosses to exploit the people and harm life. 

We liberal patriots have a progressive tradition that goes back to the founding of the country, when WE were the ones who rose up for freedom, not YOU. WE were the real Americans then too, while the conservative Tories fled the country and preferred the tradition of being English colonists. The progressives were the ones who opposed slavery and achieved victory in the civil war, while you "Americans" rebelled and seceded from America. We progressives were the ones who in the 1900s passed the first laws to restrain and break up the power of the bosses, which today you "Americans" want to reimpose upon us. We liberal progressives were the ones that reformed the economic system to restrain speculation by the financiers that created the depression, and WE progressives created social security and boosted unions and passed other programs to protect the people from the bosses that you today support. WE progressives fought and stood up for the rights of all Americans in the sixties, while you "Americans" wanted to preserve segregation and discrimination, and you still do.

I assume that you (like me) weren't around when our ancestors rose up for freedom.  As far as Vietnam, I wasn't old enough to directly participate in the war or do anything about it either. So, I had nothing to do with the Vietnam War itself. I do remember seeing the fall of Saigon and the final evacuation of the US embassy. However, I did have the benefit of being able to learn more about it in greater detail after the war ended.

I have to say the "Baby Killer" folks and seeing sexy Jane Fonda playing around with North Vietnamese soldiers while sitting on an anti-aircraft and the liberal professors who latched on and used their propaganda here and their continuation with promoting/reinforcement of Marxist ideology to this day has pretty much burned a bridge with half the country. Now, is any of that our problem, or is a liberal Democratic problem that still lingers and hampering them today. Unfortunately, it's the half of the country that liberal Democrats may need to bail them out or save their asses some day who are more likely to watch and do nothing as Rome (so called liberal America) crumbles and burns so to speak.

You know what I don't like about you Bob, you accuse me of demonizing and then preach to me about the value of not demonizing and then you ignore it as it pertains to yourself and start demonizing us again. Bob, I think its in your nature to do that these days. Unfortunately, it's in my nature to either take you to task and teach you a lesson about doing it real life or basically move towards driving nails in your coffin and filling in the grave that yo have already dug for yourself. It's up to you dude. My sentimental or essential attachment to you is none at this point. Right now, it's just a matter of Democrats doing it or us doing it and that largely depends on what the Democrats do during the upcoming election.

(01-14-2020, 04:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I had a number of revolutionary war soldiers in my ancestry, and at least one civil war soldier. I am related distantly to Abe Lincoln. I don't know of any political leaders of those years in my ancestry. Most of my lines came to America from Britain in the 17th century; some German lines in the 1850s. Some French and Dutch earlier. None more recent. So I am an "American."

I noticed that the slogans and banting about of the word "American" became very prominent among those who opposed the protests to the Vietnam War. An "American Independent" party came into being in 1968 led by George Wallace spouting the slogan "Stand Up for America!" and he chose a militant general Le May as his running mate who advocated dropping nucs on Vietnam. In the next election much of that party became the "American" party and is now known as the "Constitution" party, although in CA the name "American Independent" stuck and is still used today. It has usually run third party candidates resembling Wallace, but in 2016 it endorsed Trump, whose policies were identical with theirs.

These are your predecessors in the use of the slogan "we are the Americans" and us liberals are not, because these conservative "Americans" thought we liberals should not have protested the war. We thought that it was better for us to have our country do the right thing, instead of pursuing wanton mass killing in the hopes that we could kill more Vietnamese than the communist regime could resupply themselves with. They said instead that it's "our country right or wrong" and "love it or leave it." We loved America; that's why we wanted it to correct course and stop sending young, courageous, excellent boomer soldiers home in body bags for a mistake.


The slogan has stuck among folks like you. The great divide in our country today descends from those great debates in the late 1960s. You "Americans" believe we should respect and stick with traditional values like "free enterprise" and Christianity and oppose reform efforts like gun control because of the "right" to bear arms in the constitution as you interpret it. We liberals continue to believe that true patriotism consists of reforming traditional ways so our society works better for all, and that "free enterprise" slogans boost the power of the wealthy bosses to exploit the people and harm life. 

We liberal patriots have a progressive tradition that goes back to the founding of the country, when WE were the ones who rose up for freedom, not YOU. WE were the real Americans then too, while the conservative Tories fled the country and preferred the tradition of being English colonists. The progressives were the ones who opposed slavery and achieved victory in the civil war, while you "Americans" rebelled and seceded from America. We progressives were the ones who in the 1900s passed the first laws to restrain and break up the power of the bosses, which today you "Americans" want to reimpose upon us. We liberal progressives were the ones that reformed the economic system to restrain speculation by the financiers that created the depression, and WE progressives created social security and boosted unions and passed other programs to protect the people from the bosses that you today support. WE progressives fought and stood up for the rights of all Americans in the sixties, while you "Americans" wanted to preserve segregation and discrimination, and those who are your allies at least still do.

I assume that you (like me) weren't around when our ancestors rose up for freedom.  As far as Vietnam, I wasn't old enough to directly participate in the war or do anything about  it either. So, I had nothing to do with the Vietnam War itself. I do remember seeing the fall of Saigon and the final evacuation of the US embassy.  However, I did have the benefit of being able to learn more about it in greater detail after the war ended.

I have to say the "Baby Killer" folks   and seeing sexy Jane Fonda playing around  with North Vietnamese soldiers while sitting on an anti-aircraft and the  liberal professors who latched  on and used  their propaganda here and their continuation  with promoting/reinforcement of  Marxist ideology to this day has pretty much burned a bridge with half the country. Now, is any of that our problem, or is  a liberal Democratic problem that still lingers and hampering  them today. Unfortunately, it's the half of the country that liberal Democrats  may need to bail them out or save their asses some day  who are more likely  to   watch and do nothing  as Rome (so called liberal America) crumbles and burns so to speak.

Your second paragraph links you directly with those who defined the word "American" as you use it today, showing that your side of the divide is indeed the offshoot of the debates of the late sixties over the Vietnam War and related issues. Those who opposed the war then were accused of being un-American and Marxist communist sympathizers then, and you continue that tradition although the war itself is now over. 

I hope we can indeed mobilize our half of the country to do the right thing and cast you "Americans" out of power, and I agree it is a bit like herding cats sometimes to get our side together. But polls show a majority of the country now disapproves of Trump, and that is the majority we will need to win elections. 2020 looks very uncertain to me at this point though. Trump may have a slight advantage in the EC. But those who say he will win by a landslide will not see that prophecy come true.

(01-13-2020, 04:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 10:31 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not yours to own.  And please, let's agree that dirty tricks are the GOP's stock in trade.  The Dems and other non-party liberal groups are rank amateurs.  BTW, threats,, implied or direct, have negative consequences.  You need to tone it down.  Remarkable as it may be to you, liberals are both patriotic and brave.  If you actually start a civil war, be prepared to lose it.  That's how it played last time.

And I Have been noting the ‘terrorism is not the way to change America’ meme seen first with Oklahoma City, then with September 11th.  Both parties rejected terrorism, and both bases followed suit.  Classic seem to be obsessed with the old Industrial Age love of violence, not ready to switch to the major legislative bill approach.  Violence in the form of a civil war or revolution used to be required for a major cultural change, but has not been necessary in the USA domestically since the New Deal.  The spiral of violence is not escalating.  I am not anticipating violence making a comeback now.  Crisis wars are an age out.

I sincerely hope you're right about another round of internal violence.  External violence isn't any better, just not-here.  To be honest, I'm less sanguine than you are in general.  I'm not sold on violence either, but I do think it's possible enough that we need to highly vigilant.

(01-14-2020, 03:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 06:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I had a number of revolutionary war soldiers in my ancestry, and at least one civil war soldier. I am related distantly to Abe Lincoln. I don't know of any political leaders of those years in my ancestry. Most of my lines came to America from Britain in the 17th century; some German lines in the 1850s. Some French and Dutch earlier. None more recent. So I am an "American."

For a while I was into genealogy.  Our ancestors include veterans of the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War,  WW I, and WW2.  We had a major line that settled in Hingham MA way back in the 1600s that is the best documented and populated.  We are are all over the book History of Hingham.  (One married couple had only one pair of grandparents between them.  They sure had a smaller taboo against intermarrying back then.). I can match your distant kinship to Lincoln, and raise you four people who sailed on the Mayflower.  (My nephew lives near Mordici Lincoln Street, a Lincoln ancestor who stayed in Scituate MA for a time.)  Other French, Norwegian, and similar lines tend to end as they cross the Atlantic, truncating them.  Each nationality seemed to stick among their own kind until 1900 or so, then seemed to intermarry among Europeans quite a bit, creating all those lines.

Anyway, I haven't identified as "American," but as purebred mongrel.  Same thing?

See the Butlers of Brockton if you are really curious.

It just goes to show that those who question the authority of the Republicans are "Americans." My ancestors included Mayflower folks too. Mordecai Lincoln is my direct ancestor. No WWI or WWII soldiers, though; my father was a pacifist CO in the big one, and a co-founder of the first listener-supported radio station in the nation, KPFA (Pacifica Foundation).

Dude, I've been questioning your authority, your positions, your views, your reasoning, your overall knowledge, your ideology, your judgement, your core values/ inner morality, your political motives and so forth. So, where is the liberal pacifist while cops are being sent into harms way to collect so called illegal firearms. Let me guess, the pacifist is here beating on his chest while the non pacifist is here showing you real death and violence that the pacifist played a role in creating because their emotions fogged their judgement. I assume you must have been sleeping or dreaming when the Republican base rejected their authority and opted to do what liberal Americans do by going outside the box so to speak. Is America cult like? Hint...Liberal America reminds me of a cult like culture. BTW, it also reminds me of an aristocratic culture that few regular people have very much sway with today as well. So, what kind of Americans are you guys these days?

(01-14-2020, 06:00 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 04:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 10:31 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not yours to own.  And please, let's agree that dirty tricks are the GOP's stock in trade.  The Dems and other non-party liberal groups are rank amateurs.  BTW, threats,, implied or direct, have negative consequences.  You need to tone it down.  Remarkable as it may be to you, liberals are both patriotic and brave.  If you actually start a civil war, be prepared to lose it.  That's how it played last time.

And I Have been noting the ‘terrorism is not the way to change America’ meme seen first with Oklahoma City, then with September 11th.  Both parties rejected terrorism, and both bases followed suit.  Classic seem to be obsessed with the old Industrial Age love of violence, not ready to switch to the major legislative bill approach.  Violence in the form of a civil war or revolution used to be required for a major cultural change, but has not been necessary in the USA domestically since the New Deal.  The spiral of violence is not escalating.  I am not anticipating violence making a comeback now.  Crisis wars are an age out.

I sincerely hope you're right about another round of internal violence.  External violence isn't any better, just not-here.  To be honest, I'm less sanguine than you are in general.  I'm not sold on violence either, but I do think it's possible enough that we need to highly vigilant.

I agree. I hope that the information age and the new age and greenpeace trends in general will reduce the danger of violence in our 4T. I think however the spiral of violence is growing somewhat in the mass shootings of Mexicans, Jews, gays, blacks and so on by disturbed individuals and by police, by the growing militancy of right wing groups who oppose gun control and uphold racist, neo-liberal beliefs and favor civil war, as well as growing resistance such as black lives matter and antifa. This spiral has not brought us to the brink of a violent civil war as yet, but we are already in a cold civil war much like that of the early 1850s, and have been for some time now. And we still have as many as 5 years before we reach a period equivalent to 1860-61. 

The record of past 4Ts, even before the industrial age, is very poor in respect to the outbreak of major wars. So vigilance is a great approach. How do we avoid violence, and yet assure that the blue progressive side of the cold civil war wins, so that our country can progress and develop further instead of descending further into a banana-republican oligarchy with a failing climate? That's the issue we face. We would like to avoid gruesome mass violence, but we need also to win, and there's no substitute for victory now. Kumbaya and let's just all get along is not an option anymore.

(01-14-2020, 06:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 03:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 06:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I had a number of revolutionary war soldiers in my ancestry, and at least one civil war soldier. I am related distantly to Abe Lincoln. I don't know of any political leaders of those years in my ancestry. Most of my lines came to America from Britain in the 17th century; some German lines in the 1850s. Some French and Dutch earlier. None more recent. So I am an "American."

For a while I was into genealogy.  Our ancestors include veterans of the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War,  WW I, and WW2.  We had a major line that settled in Hingham MA way back in the 1600s that is the best documented and populated.  We are are all over the book History of Hingham.  (One married couple had only one pair of grandparents between them.  They sure had a smaller taboo against intermarrying back then.). I can match your distant kinship to Lincoln, and raise you four people who sailed on the Mayflower.  (My nephew lives near Mordici Lincoln Street, a Lincoln ancestor who stayed in Scituate MA for a time.)  Other French, Norwegian, and similar lines tend to end as they cross the Atlantic, truncating them.  Each nationality seemed to stick among their own kind until 1900 or so, then seemed to intermarry among Europeans quite a bit, creating all those lines.

Anyway, I haven't identified as "American," but as purebred mongrel.  Same thing?

See the Butlers of Brockton if you are really curious.

It just goes to show that those who question the authority of the Republicans are "Americans." My ancestors included Mayflower folks too. Mordecai Lincoln is my direct ancestor. No WWI or WWII soldiers, though; my father was a pacifist CO in the big one, and a co-founder of the first listener-supported radio station in the nation, KPFA (Pacifica Foundation).

Dude, I've been questioning your authority, your positions, your views, your reasoning, your overall knowledge, your ideology, your judgement, your core values/ inner  morality, your political motives  and so forth. So, where is the liberal  pacifist while cops are being sent into harms way to collect so called illegal firearms. Let me guess, the pacifist is here beating on his chest while the non pacifist is here showing you real death and violence that the pacifist played a role in creating because their emotions fogged their judgement. I assume you must have been sleeping or dreaming when the Republican base rejected their authority and opted to do what liberal Americans do by going  outside the box so to speak. Is America cult like? Hint...Liberal America reminds me of a cult like culture. BTW, it also reminds me of an aristocratic culture that few regular people  have very much sway with today as well. So, what kind of Americans are you guys these days?

Of course you question my "authority," except that I am not in authority!

We will back the police if they enforce laws to collect illegal firearms from those judged unable to keep them safely. Such laws have been passed in CA and many states, and are being considered by congress. It could get violent on some occasions. I don't figure that a law banning semi-automatics that I favor would include cops confiscating them from those judged competent to keep them; that would be a bridge too far for current political powers to adopt, although Beto O'Rourke advocated some voluntary version of this after the horrible mass shooting in his town. 

We are the real Americans, because we are in the progressive tradition I outlined. You guys are just as you described; you rejected the protests of Jane Fonda and such and used that as your emotional excuse to divide yourselves off from progressives and maintain your "American" cult. So it is, and we can't change it now. You guys are stuck with your right-wing cults.

We can only hope to persuade just enough real Americans to support progressive policies and oppose the mindless obstruction by Trump, McConnell and the Republican banana-republican oligarchs who want to despoil the planet and keep us poor in order to enrich themselves.

(01-14-2020, 04:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You know what I don't like about you Bob, you accuse me of demonizing and then preach to me about the value of not demonizing and then you ignore it as it pertains to yourself and start demonizing us again. Bob, I think its in your nature to do that these days. Unfortunately, it's in my nature to either take you to task and teach you a lesson about doing it real life or basically move towards driving nails in your coffin and filling in the grave that yo have already dug for yourself. It's up to you dude. My sentimental or essential attachment to you is none at this point. Right now, it's just a matter of Democrats doing it or us doing it and that largely depends on what the Democrats do during the upcoming election.

There are a few groups I will reject with prejudice.  I am not alone.  Hillary called them deplorable.  Let’s throw up racists, the KKK, the Nazi as groups that deserve demonizing.  There is a slightly milder group just into tribal thinking, racists who are all in favor of white male Protestants having an advantage.  Related, there are the Evangelicals, who attempt to use the government to enforce their religious values.

You cannot argue rationally against prejudice?  You either believe in your heart that all People are created equal or not?

These are not really welcome even if the Democrats are building a big tent.  The whole idea is to build a big coalition, but these groups would not be welcome for obvious reasons.  Demonize?  Do I have to Demonize racists?  Do they not demonize themselves?

And yet, the Southern Strategy is real, its echoes live on today, and the deplorables remain a significant part of the conservative group.

And some people praise all things conservative and decline to renounce racists and tribal thinkers.  If you could stand up and renounce a few groups I could feel better about your advocating for the conservatives.  I mean in the USA we are into retail racism, not wholesale like the fascists and communists.  We lynch.  We hang just enough to shape the culture and induce terror.  We do not build gas chambers or ship to Siberia to make loving space for other racial groups, or we at least haven’t since we exported Native Americans to ever less desirable lands back in the 1800s.

Are there any liberal deplorables you would care to identify?  Are there any groups you would demonize other than liberals in general?  Would you care to welcome the deplorable groups I have mentioned into your big tent?

Me, I would welcome many conservatives into my big tent.  It is natural and proper for many to advocate small government, less taxes, and not changing the rural independent culture into the urban cooperative one.  This difference does not deserve demonization.  This is why I thought entering a conservative era in Nixon’s time was natural and cyclical.  This is why I am an advocate for the 2nd Amendment.  These are people I would respect as fair opponents.

Of course, whether they would cross over in another question.  They would rather stand with the deplorable groups that compromise at this point.

But, yes, deplorables exist definitely on the conservative side.  I would like to hear you nominate similar groups on the progressive side.  The people who legislate from the bench and practice cultural change by force before reaching a clear supermajority?  The gun policy crowd are included, but this is one place where I have argued with the reds.  I wouldn’t demonize them quite, but I have spoken against them often enough.  The elites on both side, who tend to monopolize wealth?  I would rather speak and reason against them, but would quite understand demising them.  Those that keep the jobs and other benefits of the progressive era and let younger generations feel the poverty of the more recent conservative policies?  I would vote and speak against these policies, but what more can I do if too many conservatives are greedy?  Others?

You could use logic and passion to work against particular groups.  Alternatively, you could demonize, lie and call groups names.  I would rather the first, but there are some groups that seem to deserve the second.  Some people prefer clear logical arguments.  Others cannot do clear and logical, and lie and call people names instead.  That is a large part of why you cannot be respected.

(01-14-2020, 12:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Socialist?  That sort of means government for the people, which is hardly an insult.  The problem is that the old world groups that called themselves socialist were more often not socialist by the above definition.  They were for their own elites, the party, those that controlled the means of production.  Therefore, they failed.  They could not compete with the West, and have not yet learned, repeating their mistake.  Their current attempts to mix capitalism with autocracy will eventually run into similar problems.  In the process of their lie about being socialists, however, they put an ugly connotation on the word.  If I thought you weren’t playing on the ugliness I would not object very much to the word.  There is really nothing wrong with a government that is trying to work for the people as opposed to a party that thinks themselves above the law.

I think that we are both educated enough to know the meaning of socialism and understand its direct relation to communism. I figure/ assume if I know it then you should probably (???) know it too because everyone knows that liberals are (supposed to be) more intelligent people than me. So, who is proving themselves wrong and who is proving themselves right based on this particular exchange? I know the answer, the question is do you know it? Hint...A monarch and a royal army and a royal air force and a royal navy and an American are good things to have around while nations are embracing socialism like Great Britain and other WE nations following World War II.

Yes, the old world and the new world took different paths. The US ( New World) opted for a new path. The old world pretty much remained the old world. Later, after revolts and civil wars and a dose of old fashioned imperialism that failed, Great Britain and France (the new west) set themselves apart from the old world (the old east). Later on, the new west along with the new world and won a world war with the old world eastern powers. The remaining eastern power (western ally) imploded and turned into a communist state. Later on, the old eastern world pretty much imploded and was later pretty much destroyed during a world war with a western power, the new world and a new eastern power that was still pretty much old world. The new western powers expanded and eastern power or communist state expanded formed several eastern communist state resulting in the cold war era and the formation of another eastern power or communist state. Dude, I've telling you that you party isn't much different than the countries located in the old word. You see, the countries in the old world voted for socialism while we stuck with capitalism.

(01-15-2020, 02:51 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I think that we are both educated enough to know the meaning of socialism and understand its direct relation to communism. I figure/ assume if I know it then you should probably (???) know it too because everyone knows that liberals are (supposed to be) more intelligent people than me. So, who is proving themselves wrong and who is proving themselves right based on this particular exchange? I know the answer, the question is do you know it? Hint...A monarch and a royal army and a royal air force and a royal navy and an American are good things to have  around while nations are embracing  socialism like   Great Britain and other WE nations  following World War II.

Yes, the old world and the new world took different paths. The US ( New World) opted for a new path. The old world pretty much remained the old world. Later, after revolts and civil wars and a dose of old fashioned imperialism that failed, Great Britain and France (the new west) set themselves apart from the old world (the old east). Later on, the new west along with the new world and won a world war with the old world eastern powers. The remaining eastern power (western ally) imploded and turned into a communist state. Later on, the old eastern world pretty much imploded and was later pretty much destroyed during a world war with a western power, the new world and a new eastern power that was still pretty much old world. The new western powers expanded and eastern power or communist state expanded formed several eastern communist state resulting in the cold war era and the formation of another eastern power or communist state. Dude, I've telling you that you party isn't much different than the countries located in the old word. You see, the countries in the old world voted for socialism while we stuck with capitalism.

I do see France and the areas once controlled by Napoleon as a slightly different version of ‘the West’ than the British, North Americans, Australians etc…  This is a slightly different tradition, the children of the French Revolution, but very close.  East of Napoleon’s area you later got Fascism and Communism.  I don’t think it coincidence.  In Napoleon's area and westwards, you got the full government benefits of the Enlightenment.  To the east, not so much.

My understanding of use of the word ‘socialism’ reflects this.  In the west of Europe, people who call themselves socialist generally also use democracy, balance of power, human rights, and the other Enlightenment principles.  Further east, not so much.  The Germans and their Axis allies converted to Enlightenment values after World War II.  Further east, the Russians and Chinese are still clinging to autocratic Agricultural Age government.  They may give lip service to the Enlightenment principles.  They may call themselves socialist, even if they care far more for their elite ruling class than the people.  They governed then for the Communist Party, and govern today for the super rich elites.  But, they are not really socialists, not really governing for the benefit of the people.  The closest they get is when they try to stave off the eventual revolt by keeping the standard of living going up.  Even if they were not selfishly motivated, they would say the benefits of the Enlightenment are not worth the pain and chaos of the transition.

Even there, I can almost forgive the Chinese.  They lived under crisis or near crisis conditions from the time of the Opium Wars through the Communist Revolution.  It was really ugly.  They were traumatized, though they are getting near the time when these traumas are passing from living memory.  In the meanwhile, they will try a lot before they allow China to fall into that environment again, but their young people do not remember.  They look at Enlightenment cultures and ask why not in China too?

Thus, I cannot quite comprehend the US conservatives who claim they cannot tell when Enlightenment values are missing.  I mean, really?  Human rights?  Checks and balances?  Fair and real multi party elections?  You notice when such things are missing.  At least, I do.

Thus when a US conservative claims not to be able to tell the difference, I am dubious.  I mean they are supposed to be less acute, but come on?  They are not that dumb.

At any rate, I can approve of the Western people calling themselves socialists who actually do work to the benefit of the People, who actually include the Enlightenment principles in their culture and government.

Russia and China?  They are in another category entirely.  At best, they give the Enlightenment lip service only.  As the token Whig, this rubs me very wrong.  To the extent that conservatives pretend not to be able to tell when the Enlightenment culture and values are missing, they rub me wrong too.

(01-13-2020, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 10:31 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not yours to own.  And please, let's agree that dirty tricks are the GOP's stock in trade.  The Dems and other non-party liberal groups are rank amateurs.  BTW, threats,, implied or direct, have negative consequences.  You need to tone it down.  Remarkable as it may be to you, liberals are both patriotic and brave.  If you actually start a civil war, be prepared to lose it.  That's how it played last time.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not yours to have or give away. Just so you understand where I'm coming from, my American ancestors directly participated in the American Revolutionary war against the British and the American Civil War against the Confederacy and the American war against the Axis Powers during World War II.  Yes, I agree with you, the American side won the last time and the times before it as well. I expect that to continue/prevail against the quasi socialists of our time as well. So, how much of the country are you able to lose and still be able survive and adequately maintain liberal government with all its liberal policies and programs these days. Your state could on the verge of splitting and seeing its tax revenues significantly reduced by a bunch of self righteous fools who have this crazy notion in their heads that have the same power as the government of New Zealand or Australia.

As far as I know, there are no warmongers itching for blood and soil on my side of this tiff. Antifa is a pale antithesis of the white power types, and I actually see them around in my own community. Rebel flags are both common and intended to be provocative. And no one on my side is trotting around carrying assault rifles everywhere. Can you say the same for your side? And btw, why the need to go about armed to the teeth? Is this nascent cowardice or simply old-fashioned paranoia?

(01-15-2020, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I know, there are no warmongers itching for blood and soil on my side of this tiff.  Antifa is a pale antithesis of the white power types, and I actually see them around.  And no one on my side is trotting around carry assault rifles everywhere.  Can you say the same for your side?

There were some militants off on a tangent of the Black Lives Matter front that were shooting cops for a time. You can't entirely forget that. (You can't forget the racist cops going around shooting blacks either.) In general, you are correct though.

(01-15-2020, 10:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2020, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I know, there are no warmongers itching for blood and soil on my side of this tiff.  Antifa is a pale antithesis of the white power types, and I actually see them around.  And no one on my side is trotting around carry assault rifles everywhere.  Can you say the same for your side?

There were some militants off on a tangent of the Black Lives Matter front that were shooting cops for a time.  You can't entirely forget that.  (You can't forget the racist cops going around shooting blacks either.)  In general, you are correct though.

Note: I edited my response wile you were responding, so they are bit out of kilter.  I do agree that there are always fringe actors who take things way too far, and the leftist fringe is no exception.  The real risk is establishing false equivalency (i.e. bad actors on both sides).  Sometimes, you have to keep score.

(01-15-2020, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2020, 10:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2020, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I know, there are no warmongers itching for blood and soil on my side of this tiff.  Antifa is a pale antithesis of the white power types, and I actually see them around.  And no one on my side is trotting around carry assault rifles everywhere.  Can you say the same for your side?

There were some militants off on a tangent of the Black Lives Matter front that were shooting cops for a time.  You can't entirely forget that.  (You can't forget the racist cops going around shooting blacks either.)  In general, you are correct though.

Note: I edited my response wile you were responding, so they are bit out of kilter.  I do agree that there are always fringe actors who take things way too far, and the leftist fringe is no exception.  The real risk is establishing false equivalency (i.e. bad actors on both sides).  Sometimes, you have to keep score.

But is the equivalency false if there really are fringe bad actors on both sides?

But the main line actors are far more forgiven if they renounce the own side’s bad actors. Conservatives can renounce their racists. Progressives can renounce legislation from the bench, attempts to change culture by force when they do not have the supermajority votes to amend the constitution. (There really is a legal right to own and carry weapons.) That is the sort of thing that would have to be done to bring the two factions together, to allow them to live in the same reality, to share a common set of values.

(01-15-2020, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 10:31 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not yours to own.  And please, let's agree that dirty tricks are the GOP's stock in trade.  The Dems and other non-party liberal groups are rank amateurs.  BTW, threats,, implied or direct, have negative consequences.  You need to tone it down.  Remarkable as it may be to you, liberals are both patriotic and brave.  If you actually start a civil war, be prepared to lose it.  That's how it played last time.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but America is not yours to have or give away. Just so you understand where I'm coming from, my American ancestors directly participated in the American Revolutionary war against the British and the American Civil War against the Confederacy and the American war against the Axis Powers during World War II.  Yes, I agree with you, the American side won the last time and the times before it as well. I expect that to continue/prevail against the quasi socialists of our time as well. So, how much of the country are you able to lose and still be able survive and adequately maintain liberal government with all its liberal policies and programs these days. Your state could on the verge of splitting and seeing its tax revenues significantly reduced by a bunch of self righteous fools who have this crazy notion in their heads that have the same power as the government of New Zealand or Australia.

As far as I know, there are no warmongers itching for blood and soil on my side of this tiff.  Antifa is a pale antithesis of the white power types, and I actually see them around in my own community.  Rebel flags are both common and intended to be provocative.  And no one on my side is trotting around carrying assault rifles everywhere.  Can you say the same for your side?  And btw, why the need to go about armed to the teeth?  Is this nascent cowardice or simply old-fashioned paranoia?

If antifa switched from sticks and bottles and whatever else to deadlier weapons, what do you have on your side that we have a right to use our firearms to defend ourselves with these days or even shoot them with these days. Me, the rebel flag is nothing more than a symbol associated with southern pride/ southern culture that your liberal goons and morons don't have the right to destroy. Hint...I'm a northerner, if you can do that, what's next? You may want to start packing your bags because we are on to them and the rhetoric is going to start getting nasty. This is warning to a liberal that hasn't come to gripes with the fact that his days are over. Karma is a bitch.