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

(09-06-2018, 03:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You and I have had an issue with understanding one another  for a LONG time. Where did you get that understanding from? Your understanding of conservatives is primarily based on what? It wasn't  based on me, my views, my opinion of the current progressives, my understanding of the progressives or our direct communications with each other.

FWIW, your views are neither conservative in the classic sense nor the libertarian sense, so the source of confusion rests with you.

(09-06-2018, 03:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-05-2018, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Both CNN and Breitbart put the win of activist Ayanna Pressley over the establishment Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Democratic primaries on their respective front web pages.  There was a slight difference in how it was reported.  Breitbart emphasized a leftist victory.  CNN emphasized a counter establishment victory.  As usual, the basic facts were the same, but the spin was there.

I would emphasize the counter establishment theme.  One of the things to respect in the red movement is their dislike of establishment figures, one place they are a little ahead of the blue.  The blue are hopefully catching up.

I'd say they both got it right. The left won and eliminated another more capitalist minded Democrat. As I've said, socialists and capitalists are like oil and water and don't mix well.

You aren't a capitalist either, just a small businessman working hard to make a life.  Capitalists employ their money, not their skills and efforts.  That said, you may not have socialist tendencies either … or you may.  For example, do you favor a privatized police force?  Military?  Any other social service?  If so, why?

(09-07-2018, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-06-2018, 03:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-05-2018, 03:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-04-2018, 10:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The day the blues stop looking backwards for solutions relating to the modern day and stop clinging to beliefs and values associated with the past during the height of the old Democratic party.

?

To me, Conservative means a desire to cling to old values, not change.  Progressive means to adapt new values, to change.  For example conservative in global warming is to deny the greenhouse effect and continue to release pollutants.  To be progressive is to stop releasing them.  To be conservative in the late Gilded Age was to continue without workplace safety, child labor or work hour protections, while being Progressive was to enact laws addressing the issues.  In war, conservative in one era was to maintain isolationism, to strive not to embroil oneself in European Conflicts.  It later meant to cling to being a world power, to cling to FDR's policies of being strong and acting abroad.  Too be progressive is to adapt the culture to the future, to recognize that as technology changes it should be recognized and laws change to adapt, while being conservative sees the values of the past, especially old power structures are allowed to keep past ways of making profits.

I think you are confused, have it backwards of the usual understanding.  What exactly do you mean here?

You and I have had an issue with understanding one another  for a LONG time. Where did you get that understanding from? Your understanding of conservatives is primarily based on what? It wasn't  based on me, my views, my opinion of the current progressives, my understanding of the progressives or our direct communications with each other.

I think my definition is dictionary.  Common.  I can't be much clearer than above.

However, progressives progress.  A progressive of the US Civil War will be different from a progressive of the late Gilded Age, will be different from a New Deal Progressive, who is different from a Consciousness Revolution progressive, etc...  If you assume all progressives share issue and positions across vastly different times, you will be dwelling on a straw man.  The uniting principles have to be very broad for that, such as favoring human rights, equality and democracy.

Establishment conservatives generally drag their feet, advocating slavery around the Civil War, pushing isolationism before WW II, the domino effect around Vietnam, always favoring the way the current ruling elites profit, etc...  They often favor the values the progressives set in stone in the prior set of turnings.  Their clock tends to run slow.

But that often is not a good description of the roots.  The very rich establishment conservatives cannot be the party alone.  There are too few of them.  Many down home people will follow the Establishment with ideas like small government, or what is good for General Motors is good for the country, or taxes are bad.  Often these ideas have merit, are not totally dumb, but they often have to pass though the conservative establishment to get implemented.  I don't see your flavor of conservatism as establishment.  I do see a large gap between the red establishment and, say, the Tea Party.

Mostly, to address a bunch of people, I have to address a main stream.  There are odd ball conservatives, with odd ideas, and taking some of these odd straw men and ad hominims seriously is hard.  When I address ideas that are commonly found in the conservative press, I am not addressing the oddball conservatives with their off ideas here.  This puts off the odd balls for some reason.  They expect me to take them seriously, to ignore the many and address the odd guy.

Uniting principles have to broader than those of the blues/progressives these days. A simpleton red might follow an idea like small government as government continues to grow and become more powerful and less interested in serving of the interests of those who elected them like a blue simpleton might follow an idea like big government and helps it grow and become more powerful and eliminates a few long standing American rights that big government views as no longer being necessary or views as no longer being applicable to certain people or groups.

As general rule, what's good for Ford Motors is good for the country considering the country is getting the bulk of the benefits as far as taxes and employment are concerned.

(09-07-2018, 04:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-06-2018, 03:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-05-2018, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Both CNN and Breitbart put the win of activist Ayanna Pressley over the establishment Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Democratic primaries on their respective front web pages.  There was a slight difference in how it was reported.  Breitbart emphasized a leftist victory.  CNN emphasized a counter establishment victory.  As usual, the basic facts were the same, but the spin was there.

I would emphasize the counter establishment theme.  One of the things to respect in the red movement is their dislike of establishment figures, one place they are a little ahead of the blue.  The blue are hopefully catching up.

I'd say they both got it right. The left won and eliminated another more capitalist minded Democrat. As I've said, socialists and capitalists are like oil and water and don't mix well.

You aren't a capitalist either, just a small businessman working hard to make a life.  Capitalists employ their money, not their skills and efforts.  That said, you may not have socialist tendencies either … or you may.  For example, do you favor a privatized police force?  Military?  Any other social service?  If so, why?

Don't fool yourself, I'm a capitalist and I've been one for a long time. Do you favor a private force, a non-existent police force or the public funded police force that the capitalist system still provides today.

(09-07-2018, 04:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Uniting principles have to broader than those of the blues/progressives these days. A simpleton red might follow an idea like small government as government continues to grow and become more powerful and less interested in serving of the interests of those who elected them like a blue simpleton might follow an idea like big government and helps it  grow and become more powerful and eliminates a few long standing American rights that big government views as no longer being  necessary or views as no longer being applicable to certain people or groups.  

I tend to use the word 'base' rather than insults and demeaning descriptions like 'simpleton'.  I respect the concepts behind both parties bases somewhat.

I do find the gun issue and the Second Amendment reverses certain trends.  Generally, you would find progressives on the side of the arrow of progress and The Enlightenment rights.  However, the blue base generally goes for gun prohibition, while it is the reds who are going with the old right.  As long as the prohibitions are limited to felons and mentally incompetent, let them try prohibition, but prohibitions are notoriously difficult to enforce and enable the criminal element.

It is easy to see how the parties reversed on this issue.  Weapons fit better in the rural environment, and police response time is longer as population density decreases.  Hunting is more common in rural areas.  The need to try something to ease gun violence in cities is distant from the more rural Republican base.  This reverses the usual position of the progressives favoring equality and rights.  It is also why I fence with Pbower and Eric on this issue.  I am laying cause less with the reds than staying consistently progressive.  The arrow of progress suggests a strengthening of the Right to own and carry weapons.

I generally sympathize with the bases and consider many of their ideas good ones.  However, when stereotypes are involved, I get doubtful.  The blue include stereotypes of the red as rednecks, hillbillies and gun nuts.  David Horn on this site and the book Hillbilly Eulogy both fish modern blue stereotypes.  The red might reply with their stereotypes of the welfare mother, and people who exploit government handouts.   All might have some truth, but I have met far more people than stereotypes.

I have problems when people too much vote their stereotypes.  Voting for small government, low taxes and the Second Amendment is fine.  Voting for a politician who promises these things but delivers support for the elites and the Swamp is less fine.  Voting for a millionaire narcissistic liar?

Now, I don't see you as the base.  I see you as an extremist and an oddity.

(09-07-2018, 04:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]As general rule, what's good for Ford Motors is good for the country considering the country is getting the bulk of the benefits as far as taxes and employment are concerned.

Since Reagan's time, profits from automation have been fed to the elites.  The division of wealth has skyrocketed.  There is a point to strong corporations.  Right now though, balancing the division of wealth more could benefit the people.

(09-08-2018, 05:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2018, 04:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Uniting principles have to broader than those of the blues/progressives these days. A simpleton red might follow an idea like small government as government continues to grow and become more powerful and less interested in serving of the interests of those who elected them like a blue simpleton might follow an idea like big government and helps it  grow and become more powerful and eliminates a few long standing American rights that big government views as no longer being  necessary or views as no longer being applicable to certain people or groups.  

I tend to use the word 'base' rather than insults and demeaning descriptions like 'simpleton'.  I respect the concepts behind both parties bases somewhat.

I do find the gun issue and the Second Amendment reverses certain trends.  Generally, you would find progressives on the side of the arrow of progress and The Enlightenment rights.  However, the blue base generally goes for gun prohibition, while it is the reds who are going with the old right.  As long as the prohibitions are limited to felons and mentally incompetent, let them try prohibition, but prohibitions are notoriously difficult to enforce and enable the criminal element.[/i]

I would leave the sport hunters, target shooters, and the legitimate collectors alone. Someone who 'needs' a gun for protection (unless against bears) has a huge problem that needs a solution other than a gun. Defense against an abusive spouse? The gun could make the abusive spouse even more dangerous.

Quote:It is easy to see how the parties reversed on this issue.  Weapons fit better in the rural environment, and police response time is longer as population density decreases.  Hunting is more common in rural areas.  The need to try something to ease gun violence in cities is distant from the more rural Republican base.  This reverses the usual position of the progressives favoring equality and rights.  It is also why I fence with Pbower and Eric on this issue.  I am laying cause less with the reds than staying consistently progressive.  The arrow of progress suggests a strengthening of the Right to own and carry weapons.

But not to lunatics, idiots, and criminals. Does anyone see a problem with a court order that mandates that an abusive spouse divest himself (herself?) of firearms? People would have to prove themselves trustworthy for owning guns. I am willing to accept that a hunting license creates an implicit right to bear arms.

Quote:I generally sympathize with the bases and consider many of their ideas good ones.  However, when stereotypes are involved, I get doubtful.  The blue include stereotypes of the red as rednecks, hillbillies and gun nuts.  David Horn on this site and the book Hillbilly Eulogy both fish modern blue stereotypes.  The red might reply with their stereotypes of the welfare mother, and people who exploit government handouts.   All might have some truth, but I have met far more people than stereotypes.

"Redneck, hillbilly, peckerwood"... in All the King's Men, Willie Stark uses those words to describe what the elites (then d@mn-yankee Republicans) thought of poor Southern white people to remind such people that they so smear to get those Southern whites to vote for him.

We liberals need to expunge such words from our vocabulary just as we expunged (or our parents told us not to use) ethnic slurs. Cultural identity is even more real than 'race'. Appalachia may have different problems than do the ghettos, barrios, and "the Rez"... but poverty still stings in a culture that celebrates little more than wealth, institutional power, and hedonistic indulgence. If we want to believe that 'our' classical, folk, or jazz is somehow better than country, then let's leave that opinion where it belongs. J S Bach isn't for everyone.

Quote:I have problems when people too much vote their stereotypes.  Voting for small government, low taxes and the Second Amendment is fine.  Voting for a politician who promises these things but delivers support for the elites and the Swamp is less fine.  Voting for a millionaire narcissistic liar?

When politics has identity as its focus, whether on a medieval or modern conception of life (Spain in the 1930s) or religious identity (Yugoslavia in the 1990s), the fabric of society easily unravels, especially if it was shoddy or became threadbare. Spain alternated between extremes until it got a clique that combined medieval attitudes of social organization with modern technology and got the culturally-barren, grossly-inequitable, politically-uniform regime of Francisco Franco for nearly forty years. The downfall of Marxist leader Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia left in its wake an unwholesome world of patronage and the pretension that ethnic and cultural divides did not exist -- only for people as ruthless as Tito to exploit those divides for their own power. We know what happened, and it is something not to be imitated here.

The people of Spain (which has somehow stuck together) and the former Yugoslavia (which did not) seemed to have learned their lessons. We Americans have yet to know what the peoples of both Spain and the  former Yugoslavia know through harsh experience, and we can still avoid the monstrosity of a Franco or Tito here. But we already have people who would meld high technology with pre-modern social, religious, and political values. Who needs evolution or to study the fossil record when we have the Bible to explain all in the Genesis account and can explain why aquatic fossils exist at high mountain peaks because the Flood of Noah that lasted forty days and nights in which he circumnavigated the globe (which, by the way, is flat!) in less time than it took for Columbus to get from Spain to the New World.. deposited those fossils even at the summet of Mount Everest? After all, the  world divides neatly into those who will enjoy Heavenly bliss and those who will suffer in Hell for having inadequate faith or the wrong faith.

End of snark. Somehow I like the conception that the good in Humanity will end up together and find out what God really wants for them and accept such as the result of their goodness, and that the likes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Saddam Hussein will be out of sight and out of mind. I'm also tempted to believe that if there is a Hell, then the telescope will have its eyepieces in Hell so that the Nazis will get to see the delights denied them that their innocent victims get to enjoy forever. Misunderstanding God seems no more a sin to me than is failing to 'get' quantum dynamics.

Quote:Now, I don't see you (Classic X'er) as the base.  I see you (Classic X'er) as an extremist and an oddity.

(09-07-2018, 04:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]As general rule, what's good for Ford Motors is good for the country considering the country is getting the bulk of the benefits as far as taxes and employment are concerned.

Since Reagan's time, profits from automation have been fed to the elites.  The division of wealth has skyrocketed.  There is a point to strong corporations.  Right now though, balancing the division of wealth more could benefit the people.

We're going to have to tax the Hell out of automation if it leads to mass unemployment. Those who profit from capitalism need to pay for the defense of the system that makes them rich, and that means that they need to pay their fair share for both national defense and the defense of their world from the internal rot (poverty) that can bring the system down. We Americans solved the great economic meltdown of 1929-1932 in part by transforming unemployment into leisure. The current orthodoxy of transforming toil into property rents (basically, people get to pay more for the bounties of high technology and miracles of productivity to landlords like Donald Trump) is creating huge income for passive investors and poverty for far more.

OK, maybe I go too far in seeing Donald Trump as a scapegoat, maybe as much as people used to see Herbert Hoover. Flawed as Hoover was he had few of the egregious vices that Trump displays. Hoover got caught with economic assumptions that suddenly became void, and he was as inappropriately austere as Trump is excessively flamboyant.

(09-08-2018, 08:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I would leave the sport hunters, target shooters, and the legitimate collectors alone. Someone who 'needs' a gun for protection (unless against bears) has a huge problem that needs a solution other than a gun. Defense against an abusive spouse? The gun could make the abusive spouse even more dangerous.

So long as there is some form of due process, some sort of evidence. In many cases when there is a domestic problem, the first thing that happens is that one partner alleges abuse, often lying, often committing perjury. Removing a constitutional right based on hearsay is a problem.

(09-08-2018, 08:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-08-2018, 08:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I would leave the sport hunters, target shooters, and the legitimate collectors alone. Someone who 'needs' a gun for protection (unless against bears) has a huge problem that needs a solution other than a gun. Defense against an abusive spouse? The gun could make the abusive spouse even more dangerous.

So long as there is some form of due process, some sort of evidence.  In many cases when there is a domestic problem, the first thing that happens is that one partner alleges abuse, often lying, often committing perjury.  Removing a constitutional right based on hearsay is a problem.

Were I a judge I would accede to a protective order that includes "no firearms in the house" just as I might sign off on a "no intoxication" (meaning alcoholic beverages) rule.  Much abuse happens under drunkenness, right?

Not all claims of abuse are valid, to be sure. That is why there would need to be a sworn statement by the alleged victim that the abuse is of a sort that could lead to murder with a deadly weapon of any kind. Firearms typically have no dual use as might a rolling pin, golf club, kitchen knife, box-cutter, shovel, ice pick, etc.

(09-07-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2018, 04:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]You aren't a capitalist either, just a small businessman working hard to make a life.  Capitalists employ their money, not their skills and efforts.  That said, you may not have socialist tendencies either … or you may.  For example, do you favor a privatized police force?  Military?  Any other social service?  If so, why?

Don't fool yourself, I'm a capitalist and I've been one for a long time. Do you favor a private force, a non-existent police force or the public funded police force that the capitalist system still provides today.

So. tell us about your investments then.  Do you  claim more income from the unearned side or the earned side?  And let's not play cute.  Taxes pay for everything in the public domain  Private domain services, if you can call them that, are fee-based, like toll roads.  So no, I don't like those options.

(09-08-2018, 05:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2018, 04:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Uniting principles have to (be) broader than those of the blues/progressives these days. A simpleton red might follow an idea like small government as government continues to grow and become more powerful and less interested in serving of the interests of those who elected them like a blue simpleton might follow an idea like big government and helps it  grow and become more powerful and eliminates a few long standing American rights that big government views as no longer being  necessary or views as no longer being applicable to certain people or groups.  

I tend to use the word 'base' rather than insults and demeaning descriptions like 'simpleton'.  I respect the concepts behind both parties bases somewhat.

I do find the gun issue and the Second Amendment reverses certain trends.  Generally, you would find progressives on the side of the arrow of progress and The Enlightenment rights.  However, the blue base generally goes for gun prohibition, while it is the reds who are going with the old right.  As long as the prohibitions are limited to felons and mentally incompetent, let them try prohibition, but prohibitions are notoriously difficult to enforce and enable the criminal element.

It is easy to see how the parties reversed on this issue.  Weapons fit better in the rural environment, and police response time is longer as population density decreases.  Hunting is more common in rural areas.  The need to try something to ease gun violence in cities is distant from the more rural Republican base.  This reverses the usual position of the progressives favoring equality and rights.  It is also why I fence with Pbrower and Eric on this issue.  I am laying cause less with the reds than staying consistently progressive.  The arrow of progress suggests a strengthening of the Right to own and carry weapons.

I generally sympathize with the bases and consider many of their ideas good ones.  However, when stereotypes are involved, I get doubtful.  The blue include stereotypes of the red as rednecks, hillbillies and gun nuts.  David Horn on this site and the book Hillbilly Eulogy both fish modern blue stereotypes.  The red might reply with their stereotypes of the welfare mother, and people who exploit government handouts.   All might have some truth, but I have met far more people than stereotypes.

I have problems when people too much vote their stereotypes.  Voting for small government, low taxes and the Second Amendment is fine.  Voting for a politician who promises these things but delivers support for the elites and the Swamp is less fine.  Voting for a millionaire narcissistic liar?

Now, I don't see you as the base.  I see you as an extremist and an oddity.

(09-07-2018, 04:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]As general rule, what's good for Ford Motors is good for the country considering the country is getting the bulk of the benefits as far as taxes and employment are concerned.

Since Reagan's time, profits from automation have been fed to the elites.  The division of wealth has skyrocketed.  There is a point to strong corporations.  Right now though, balancing the division of wealth more could benefit the people.

A society that needs to rely on private guns to feel safe, is not the beneficiary of progress, but a victim of regression. The USA is the only developed society with this obsession. The second amendment is a relic of a time when slave rebellions had to be quashed in order to keep the South in the Union, when guns were muskets, and when armies, national guards and police as regular forces did not exist. Progress would be to remove it. Absent that, I will recognize such progress as Americans are willing to accept, given our traditions, fears and obsessions, on the gun issue, and on all the social issues.

I do see Classic Xer as typical of the Trump base; perhaps even a bit more reasonable at times. That said, I recognize what Obama says, that the blues have to seek to appeal to everyone, and name-calling does not work. I may indulge in it, but I would not consider it a good campaign tactic for a politician or a political activist. Everyone has the potential, if not the likelihood, of recognizing what is right and what is truly beneficial for themselves, and that what benefits society as a whole benefits themselves also.

The red base feeds in, as Classic Xer does in this quote above, to the notion that corporations and big business is good for America, because the benefits trickle down and jobs are created. Sometimes that's true, but today, often it is not. Blues recognize that wealth is power, and too much of both is now concentrated in what we call the 1%. Trickle down does not trickle; "job creaters" replace jobs with machines now, and hog all the benefits. Big business cannot be trusted and must be regulated, and such is not "socialism," even though such is denounced by the reds, when in reality it is restraint on the tyranny of the powerful that prey on the rest of us. 

The slogans of big government and freedom used by the reds are the exact opposite of the truth, used to fool the people. Prejudice and scapegoating has been used to great effect to create the Trump base and the GOP ideology. Red voters, as we call them today, are just people who have been fooled. So, there is no equality between the red and blue perspectives. There may be grains of truth on both sides, but the red side as it exists today has become unacceptable as a ruling principle for our society, and the sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we can make progress again after 40 long years of nothing but regression and stalemate.

(09-09-2018, 11:32 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]A society that needs to rely on private guns to feel safe, is not the beneficiary of progress, but a victim of regression.

I mostly agree, but find in that sentience that your confusion of a right with regression is telling. A right limits the power of government, is not an indication of too powerful a government if it is only enforcing the right. There you are thinking upside down, acting the extremist, doing double think. You are confusing an Enlightenment progressive right with regression.

(09-09-2018, 01:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2018, 11:32 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]A society that needs to rely on private guns to feel safe, is not the beneficiary of progress, but a victim of regression.

I mostly agree, but find in that sentience that your confusion of a right with regression is telling.  A right limits the power of government, is not an indication of too powerful a government if it is only enforcing the right.  There you are thinking upside down, acting the extremist, doing double think.  You are confusing an Enlightenment progressive right with regression.

You say that gun rights are progressive Enlightenment rights. It is in the Bill of Rights, it's true. But I don't think the enlightenment, mainly a European movement, focused on gun rights. It was the right of free speech and press, or assembly, even property rights, right of religious freedom, tolerance of dissidents rather than political prisoners, right to have a government that has the consent of the governed. That's the positive heritage of the Enlightenment; not gun rights--- which is an American-only aspect of enlightenment rights.

The Enlightenment has devolved since then. This is the regression of today. The Uranus meme*, which triumphed and expanded explosively just as the planet was discovered in 1781, has been transformed into today's libertarian ideology. "Freedom" now means the free market, and the "right" of companies to exploit workers, to pay them as little as they can, to pollute with impunity, to escape regulations against unsafe products, to send jobs overseas in the name of free trade, to buy out and speculate rather than produce and innovate, to discriminate against certain groups, and so on. Today's "gun rights" belongs in the same class with this so-called libertarian "freedom" that really destroys rights, despite their slogans. It's the "right" to have the personal means to kill other people.

The libertarian extremists of today, the followers of Bush, Palin, Cruz and Trump, tout guns as the only way our rights mean anything, as if we did not live in a society of laws, but an anarchy of whoever is the best shot rules. In reality, only respect for the rights of others and for the law guarantees freedom, not your gun.

I don't believe in gun rights, but the majority of Americans still do, and the second amendment still exists. It is constitutional and has precedent. It is outdated, because guns are no longer muskets but assault rifles which kill dozens within seconds, and because we now have police, armies and national guards that didn't exist in 1791. Gun control laws are still constitutional, according to Heller. We'll see what Kavanaugh does; how far he can destroy our rights even as he protects this regressive, outdated one, and the other phony rights of the libertarian free-market extremists. The second amendment will still exist into the future, although that future could be cut short if the gun fanatics push their agenda too far even as massacres and protests against them continue and as younger generations elect politicians intent on gun control. And if the fanatics violently rebel against increased gun control in the 2020s, as seems quite possible, then gun control and confiscation could get considerably more severe in response.

*Uranus is the revolutionary, awakener and non-conformist. Discovered in 1781, the year the United States won its independence on the eve of the French Revolution, Uranus is the planet of liberty and freedom, and the champion of individual rights and progress. It thus represents the power of the Middle Class or Bourgeoisie unleashed by the revolutions both political and industrial, and its competitive individualism and self-reliance, but also of all those who continue to rebel against established authorities-- even those who were once the revolutionaries themselves. This fact is what gave Hegel his idea about conflict and synthesis through history, which was passed on to Karl Marx. Uranus is inventive, investigates both science and the occult, and looks outside the boxes and boundaries set by Saturn. He represents the unexpected and overturns lots of applecarts. Uranus is the inner light of discovery. It is equivalent in meaning to Rahu in Vedic astrology.
http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

Using astrology to confuse a right with regression?  Eric all over.

(09-11-2018, 12:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Using astrology to confuse a right with regression?  Eric all over.

We all make the journey, though some follow a different path.  If we find our way to a good end, it shouldn't really matter.

(09-11-2018, 12:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Using astrology to confuse a right with regression?  Eric all over.

Planetary Dynamics, as you well know. Spiral Dynamics, updated. An archetype. Uranus = Orange. Early middle-class industrial. Bourgeois, Girondist. Settembrini.

Settembrini: Humanism[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Mountain
Settembrini represents the active and positive ideal of the Enlightenment, of Humanism, democracy, tolerance and human rights. He often finds Castorp literally in the dark and switches on the light before their conversations. He compares himself to Prometheus of Greek mythology, who brought of fire and enlightenment to Man. His own mentor Giosuè Carducci has even written a hymn to another lightbringer: to Lucifer, "la forza vindice della ragione." His ethics are those of bourgeois values and labor. He tries to counter Castorp's morbid fascination with death and disease, warns him against the ill Madame Chauchat, and tries to demonstrate a positive outlook on life.

(a little known aspect of this novel is its positive treatment of astrology, an aspect of the central role in the novel as a meditation on time)

Also, you could interpret my statement to mean that a society that needs personal guns to feel safe, has regressed; meaning not only in its belief in guns, but a state of society generally that is unsafe to live in. Such a regressed society, say for example like Honduras, does not have social support, functional institutions or respect for law or the rights of others, and so only has guns and other tools of violence to fall back on. The USA (or at least the red states thereof) in the last 40 years has gone increasingly in that direction.

(09-09-2018, 10:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2018, 04:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]You aren't a capitalist either, just a small businessman working hard to make a life.  Capitalists employ their money, not their skills and efforts.  That said, you may not have socialist tendencies either … or you may.  For example, do you favor a privatized police force?  Military?  Any other social service?  If so, why?

Don't fool yourself, I'm a capitalist and I've been one for a long time. Do you favor a private force, a non-existent police force or the public funded police force that the capitalist system still provides today.

So. tell us about your investments then.  Do you  claim more income from the unearned side or the earned side?  And let's not play cute.  Taxes pay for everything in the public domain  Private domain services, if you can call them that, are fee-based, like toll roads.  So no, I don't like those options.

As you know, I'm still working for a living and the bulk of my earned income and personal investments (personal property) and contributions to future retirement funds are associated with working these days. So, tell us about your investments. Do you claim more income from the unearned or the earned side these days? I assume, you are living off a combination of social security income and investment/retirement income, or living off unearned income as you seem to view it, like most people your age these days.

(09-09-2018, 11:32 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]A society that needs to rely on private guns to feel safe, is not the beneficiary of progress, but a victim of regression. The USA is the only developed society with this obsession. The second amendment is a relic of a time when slave rebellions had to be quashed in order to keep the South in the Union, when guns were muskets, and when armies, national guards and police as regular forces did not exist. Progress would be to remove it. Absent that, I will recognize such progress as Americans are willing to accept, given our traditions, fears and obsessions, on the gun issue, and on all the social issues.

I do see Classic Xer as typical of the Trump base; perhaps even a bit more reasonable at times. That said, I recognize what Obama says, that the blues have to seek to appeal to everyone, and name-calling does not work. I may indulge in it, but I would not consider it a good campaign tactic for a politician or a political activist. Everyone has the potential, if not the likelihood, of recognizing what is right and what is truly beneficial for themselves, and that what benefits society as a whole benefits themselves also.

The red base feeds in, as Classic Xer does in this quote above, to the notion that corporations and big business is good for America, because the benefits trickle down and jobs are created. Sometimes that's true, but today, often it is not. Blues recognize that wealth is power, and too much of both is now concentrated in what we call the 1%. Trickle down does not trickle; "job creaters" replace jobs with machines now, and hog all the benefits. Big business cannot be trusted and must be regulated, and such is not "socialism," even though such is denounced by the reds, when in reality it is restraint on the tyranny of the powerful that prey on the rest of us. 

The slogans of big government and freedom used by the reds are the exact opposite of the truth, used to fool the people. Prejudice and scapegoating has been used to great effect to create the Trump base and the GOP ideology. Red voters, as we call them today, are just people who have been fooled. So, there is no equality between the red and blue perspectives. There may be grains of truth on both sides, but the red side as it exists today has become unacceptable as a ruling principle for our society, and the sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we can make progress again after 40 long years of nothing but regression and stalemate.

Unfortunately, the blues seem to have big mouths and only half a brain. How have I been fooled? I've worked for over thirty years and I have a lot to show for it. You're right, we aren't equals and our views and our perspectives reflect the inequality that exists between us and those who are able to identify or relate with us.

(09-12-2018, 09:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]As you know, I'm still working for a living and the bulk of my earned income and personal investments (personal property) and contributions to future retirement funds are associated with working these days. So, tell us about your investments. Do you claim more income from the unearned or the earned side these days? I assume, you are living off a combination of social security income and investment/retirement income, or living off unearned income as you seem to view it, like most people your age these days.

My wife still works, and will for a good while, but I'm now in the post-work economy personally.  Yes, I have a 401k and SS -- even a small pension.  I don't qualify as a capitalist either.

(09-12-2018, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2018, 11:32 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]A society that needs to rely on private guns to feel safe, is not the beneficiary of progress, but a victim of regression. The USA is the only developed society with this obsession. The second amendment is a relic of a time when slave rebellions had to be quashed in order to keep the South in the Union, when guns were muskets, and when armies, national guards and police as regular forces did not exist. Progress would be to remove it. Absent that, I will recognize such progress as Americans are willing to accept, given our traditions, fears and obsessions, on the gun issue, and on all the social issues.

I do see Classic Xer as typical of the Trump base; perhaps even a bit more reasonable at times. That said, I recognize what Obama says, that the blues have to seek to appeal to everyone, and name-calling does not work. I may indulge in it, but I would not consider it a good campaign tactic for a politician or a political activist. Everyone has the potential, if not the likelihood, of recognizing what is right and what is truly beneficial for themselves, and that what benefits society as a whole benefits themselves also.

The red base feeds in, as Classic Xer does in this quote above, to the notion that corporations and big business is good for America, because the benefits trickle down and jobs are created. Sometimes that's true, but today, often it is not. Blues recognize that wealth is power, and too much of both is now concentrated in what we call the 1%. Trickle down does not trickle; "job creaters" replace jobs with machines now, and hog all the benefits. Big business cannot be trusted and must be regulated, and such is not "socialism," even though such is denounced by the reds, when in reality it is restraint on the tyranny of the powerful that prey on the rest of us. 

The slogans of big government and freedom used by the reds are the exact opposite of the truth, used to fool the people. Prejudice and scapegoating has been used to great effect to create the Trump base and the GOP ideology. Red voters, as we call them today, are just people who have been fooled. So, there is no equality between the red and blue perspectives. There may be grains of truth on both sides, but the red side as it exists today has become unacceptable as a ruling principle for our society, and the sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we can make progress again after 40 long years of nothing but regression and stalemate.

Unfortunately, the blues seem to have big mouths and only half a brain. How have I been fooled? I've worked for over thirty years and I have a lot to show for it. You're right, we aren't equals and our views and our perspectives reflect the inequality that exists between us and those who are able to identify or relate with us.

Big mouth and only half a brain? That sounds like... Donald Trump.

I honor your work ethic. Your politics are horrible.

I have had a bad back all my life, and if I had had a better one I might have been more effective at raw labor, with which if one uses one's mind becomes very skilled labor that pays well. A healthy society fosters and rewards competence. I have no problem with welfare-to-work so long as it leads people into better lives while getting them off the dole. Cheap labor usually shows why it is cheap... and low wages encourage gold-bricking.

(09-08-2018, 05:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to use the word 'base' rather than insults and demeaning descriptions like 'simpleton'.  I respect the concepts behind both parties bases somewhat.

I do find the gun issue and the Second Amendment reverses certain trends.  Generally, you would find progressives on the side of the arrow of progress and The Enlightenment rights.  However, the blue base generally goes for gun prohibition, while it is the reds who are going with the old right.  As long as the prohibitions are limited to felons and mentally incompetent, let them try prohibition, but prohibitions are notoriously difficult to enforce and enable the criminal element.

It is easy to see how the parties reversed on this issue.  Weapons fit better in the rural environment, and police response time is longer as population density decreases.  Hunting is more common in rural areas.  The need to try something to ease gun violence in cities is distant from the more rural Republican base.  This reverses the usual position of the progressives favoring equality and rights.  It is also why I fence with Pbower and Eric on this issue.  I am laying cause less with the reds than staying consistently progressive.  The arrow of progress suggests a strengthening of the Right to own and carry weapons.

I generally sympathize with the bases and consider many of their ideas good ones.  However, when stereotypes are involved, I get doubtful.  The blue include stereotypes of the red as rednecks, hillbillies and gun nuts.  David Horn on this site and the book Hillbilly Eulogy both fish modern blue stereotypes.  The red might reply with their stereotypes of the welfare mother, and people who exploit government handouts.   All might have some truth, but I have met far more people than stereotypes.

I have problems when people too much vote their stereotypes.  Voting for small government, low taxes and the Second Amendment is fine.  Voting for a politician who promises these things but delivers support for the elites and the Swamp is less fine.  Voting for a millionaire narcissistic liar?

Now, I don't see you as the base.  I see you as an extremist and an oddity.

I use similar terms and similar tactics as the blues. I counter forms of intimidation with an equal but different form of intimidation. If a blue can be a dickhead, I can be an asshole and society for the most part isn't going to have much of a problem with it. The blues don't seem to understand that they act like a bunch of arrogant dickheads who have developed a false sense of security that's associated the cozy blue worlds and cozy blue segments of American that they've created for themselves and their ideology. Outside of their cozy world, the blues are viewed fair game and open to extreme criticism, the use of extreme language and extreme terms and treatment that isn't viewed by most as being nice.