We are getting old.

[The Wonkette]

(09-26-2016, 02:25 AM)Galen Wrote: As for economic failure the worst seems to be North Korea, Cuba and, my personal favorite, Venezuela.  Eric the Obtuse and his ilk are too fucking stupid to figure out that the MIC is a product of statism and big government.   As for Clinton, his only concern was getting laid and so he went where the chicks were.

North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are basket cases, but they are also straw men; I don't know anyone from the "left" who sees those nations as ideal. Bernie Sanders and his ilk tend to point to countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, nations that do have their issues but on the whole are prosperous and functioning well, despite having a robust set of government services (health care, parental leave, unemployment benefits, and the like).

[Galen]

(09-26-2016, 06:53 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:32 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am well aware of the real cause for the war. But they used idealism (free black slaves) to justify the war and use people for what they really wanted. Not unlike religious wars.

The Civil War WAS about slavery, Tara, that is accepted by every legitimate historian. Galen is peddling extremist far-right wacko propaganda. The Civil War started because people in the southern states believed that they had a right to own other human beings.

Do you even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is?   You were willing to condemn the entire work of Murray Rothbard on the word of a college professor.  Try reading what some of these people wrote and then follow their references to see if they quoting them accurately.

[Galen]

(09-26-2016, 11:05 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 02:25 AM)Galen Wrote: As for economic failure the worst seems to be North Korea, Cuba and, my personal favorite, Venezuela.  Eric the Obtuse and his ilk are too fucking stupid to figure out that the MIC is a product of statism and big government.   As for Clinton, his only concern was getting laid and so he went where the chicks were.

North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are basket cases, but they are also straw men; I don't know anyone from the "left" who sees those nations as ideal.  Bernie Sanders and his ilk tend to point to countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, nations that do have their issues but on the whole are prosperous and functioning well, despite having a robust set of government services (health care, parental leave, unemployment benefits, and the like).

Sweden has had to scale back their welfare state in nineties.  They are not doing so well now that a large portion of the Middle East has shown up on their doorstep.  In any case all of these countries have the same problems with debt that the rest of the west has.  In any event the more central planning is done then the less well your economy does.  The left generally doesn't understand economics at all and so completely discounts these effects.

[Warren Dew]

(09-26-2016, 02:25 AM)Galen Wrote: As for Clinton, his only concern was getting laid and so he went where the chicks were.

Sorry, I meant Hillary Clinton.  I should have clarified.

[Warren Dew]

(09-26-2016, 03:06 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am unfamiliar with the aftermath of the civil war so I do not know how things were patched up after it.

There were a couple decades of "reconstruction", during which carpetbaggers from the north went south to lord it over southerners.  Then southern whites regained power and we got the institutionalized racism that lasted from the late 19th century to 1960 or so.  Basically there was no patching up, just continued disagreement with one side winning at a time.

[Galen]

(09-27-2016, 09:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:06 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am unfamiliar with the aftermath of the civil war so I do not know how things were patched up after it.

There were a couple decades of "reconstruction", during which carpetbaggers from the north went south to lord it over southerners.  Then southern whites regained power and we got the institutionalized racism that lasted from the late 19th century to 1960 or so.  Basically there was no patching up, just continued disagreement with one side winning at a time.

True enough.  Ironically, letting the southern states leave would have ended slavery without the high body count since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 would not have been in force.  Having, what were in effect, high cost assets walking off with no way to recover them would have made the institution uneconomic.  As it was, many northern states were using nullification, sometimes known as states rights, to make it very hard to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

Abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, wanted the northern states to secede based on the idea that associating with slave states was immoral.  This put the abolitionists at odds with Lincoln.

[Galen]

(09-27-2016, 02:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-27-2016, 09:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:06 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am unfamiliar with the aftermath of the civil war so I do not know how things were patched up after it.

There were a couple decades of "reconstruction", during which carpetbaggers from the north went south to lord it over southerners.  Then southern whites regained power and we got the institutionalized racism that lasted from the late 19th century to 1960 or so.  Basically there was no patching up, just continued disagreement with one side winning at a time.

Ah yeah just as i thought. That explains a lot and I do think this time around under Dionysian power, like back during the civil war times nothing will truly be settled. Not until much later. The little ones of today will begin the healing.

Don't expect that to happen unless DC stops trying to run the lives of everyone by remote control.  I don't really see the progressives/liberals ever figuring out that the US is many societies and not just one.

[Galen]

(09-27-2016, 11:53 PM)taramarie Wrote: You see, I am also an Apollonian civic like your GI's. We are in the reverse saeculum here. So I am also aware of how another country emerged into the Apollonian saeculum. Our silents addressed issues which had stagnated and our prophets protested and then took it to the power of the law to cement the consensus made. It may happen in a similar sort of way over there. But it is just an example. There will be huge differences, one difference is it may be done  in a different way state by state. But the tone will change no doubt and be more about how to get along together than ripping at each others throats. It will be in a more rational (hopefully non biased) tone no doubt. Here I know that it is that way anyway. It will be interesting for me to see America enter an Apollonian era once more while NZ starts to emerge into a Dionysian saeculum. To see the differences and the similarities will be interesting as atm for me it is like seeing a country tear itself apart in comparison.

The tone may change but the US is functionally bankrupt now and that will force a retrenchment of the size of government.  That will tend to force a decentralization which has already happened with legalization of pot and other matters which was unthinkable even in the seventies.  This suggests the the pre 1865 view of the Federal Government is reasserting itself.  Given other technologies that are in their infancy, it seems likely that the nation state is facing a long term secular decline. Rebellion will depend on if the political class gives in to reality.  Recent history does not make me optimistic.

[Warren Dew]

(09-27-2016, 02:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-27-2016, 09:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:06 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am unfamiliar with the aftermath of the civil war so I do not know how things were patched up after it.

There were a couple decades of "reconstruction", during which carpetbaggers from the north went south to lord it over southerners.  Then southern whites regained power and we got the institutionalized racism that lasted from the late 19th century to 1960 or so.  Basically there was no patching up, just continued disagreement with one side winning at a time.

Ah yeah just as i thought. That explains a lot and I do think this time around under Dionysian power, like back during the civil war times nothing will truly be settled. Not until much later.

I see it a little differently:  reconstruction was the "high", and was just fine for the North and for the carpetbaggers, just as the most recent "high" was just fine for the U.S. and for American GIs in Europe.  Then reconstruction was abandoned during the Missionary awakening, allowing the South to reassert itself just as Japan reasserted itself during the Boomer awakening.

(09-27-2016, 02:05 PM)taramarie Wrote: The little ones of today will begin the healing.

Those that survive, yes.

[Galen]

(09-28-2016, 09:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-27-2016, 02:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-27-2016, 09:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:06 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am unfamiliar with the aftermath of the civil war so I do not know how things were patched up after it.

There were a couple decades of "reconstruction", during which carpetbaggers from the north went south to lord it over southerners.  Then southern whites regained power and we got the institutionalized racism that lasted from the late 19th century to 1960 or so.  Basically there was no patching up, just continued disagreement with one side winning at a time.

Ah yeah just as i thought. That explains a lot and I do think this time around under Dionysian power, like back during the civil war times nothing will truly be settled. Not until much later.

I see it a little differently:  reconstruction was the "high", and was just fine for the North and for the carpetbaggers, just as the most recent "high" was just fine for the U.S. and for American GIs in Europe.  Then reconstruction was abandoned during the Missionary awakening, allowing the South to reassert itself just as Japan reasserted itself during the Boomer awakening.

(09-27-2016, 02:05 PM)taramarie Wrote: The little ones of today will begin the healing.

Those that survive, yes.

Unfortunately when governments get into fiscal trouble of the scale the West has now they choose to go to war since people are more willing to sacrifice their interests in the name of blind patriotism.  Now western governments have nukes and so they need either a war against an indefinable enemy and no well defined victory condition.  If the War on Terror is insufficient then a civil war might do the trick.  The last thing a politician ever wants to do is admit that the promises of the past can not be kept since it threatens their career.

[Galen]

(09-29-2016, 12:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: It is usually that way though. Those that do not think things are "fine" become the new minorities. I have a question. I have seen you use the word "carpetbaggers" several times. That is not a term used in New Zealand so this kiwi wants to know what it means.

It means exactly what it says, a bag made out of carpet.  Think of it as the nineteenth century equivalent of modern luggage.

[Galen]

(09-29-2016, 12:32 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 12:23 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 12:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: It is usually that way though. Those that do not think things are "fine" become the new minorities. I have a question. I have seen you use the word "carpetbaggers" several times. That is not a term used in New Zealand so this kiwi wants to know what it means.

It means exactly what it says, a bag made out of carpet.  Think of it as the nineteenth century equivalent of modern luggage.

Ok I still did not understand it as we have none of those terms here. I think Americans speak another language at times. I had to look it up. NOW i understand it.

"

1. a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections.
   • British
     a person who becomes a member of a mutually owned building society or insurance company in order to gain financially in the event of the organization demutualizing.
     

It was a term coined in the nineteenth century and only used now in connection with Reconstruction after the War Between the States.  I really wouldn't expect you to know it unless you had an interest in US history.  These people were, not entirely without reason, considered to be scum of the earth.

Imagine how most Americans would react to the language used in Blackadder.  Its the same problem going the other way.  Its one of the reasons most Americans find British humor to be a difficult concept.

[Warren Dew]

(09-29-2016, 12:32 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 12:23 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 12:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: It is usually that way though. Those that do not think things are "fine" become the new minorities. I have a question. I have seen you use the word "carpetbaggers" several times. That is not a term used in New Zealand so this kiwi wants to know what it means.

It means exactly what it says, a bag made out of carpet.  Think of it as the nineteenth century equivalent of modern luggage.

Ok I still did not understand it as we have none of those terms here. I think Americans speak another language at times. I had to look it up. NOW i understand it.
"

1. a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections.
   • British
     a person who becomes a member of a mutually owned building society or insurance company in order to gain financially in the event of the organization demutualizing.
     

The Wikipedia entry matches my meaning better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

[David Horn]

(09-26-2016, 01:07 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 11:05 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 02:25 AM)Galen Wrote: As for economic failure the worst seems to be North Korea, Cuba and, my personal favorite, Venezuela.  Eric the Obtuse and his ilk are too fucking stupid to figure out that the MIC is a product of statism and big government.   As for Clinton, his only concern was getting laid and so he went where the chicks were.

North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are basket cases, but they are also straw men; I don't know anyone from the "left" who sees those nations as ideal.  Bernie Sanders and his ilk tend to point to countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, nations that do have their issues but on the whole are prosperous and functioning well, despite having a robust set of government services (health care, parental leave, unemployment benefits, and the like).

Sweden has had to scale back their welfare state in nineties.  They are not doing so well now that a large portion of the Middle East has shown up on their doorstep.  In any case all of these countries have the same problems with debt that the rest of the west has.  In any event the more central planning is done then the less well your economy does.  The left generally doesn't understand economics at all and so completely discounts these effects.

Sweden chose to scale back in the '90s.  It was a choice that has been reversed since then.  But let's get to your underlying, though unstated, assumption that these economies lack dynamism.  Actually, they are among the most entrepreneurial due in large part to the low cost of failure.  Sure, they can lose their investments of time and money, but it won't devastate those entrepreneurs or their families.  They will have the safety net to rely on, and will be able to recover fairly easily ... and they know it.  How else is it possible for such small nations to have such huge economic impacts in the world?

[David Horn]

(09-28-2016, 12:21 AM)Galen Wrote: The tone may change but the US is functionally bankrupt now and that will force a retrenchment of the size of government.  That will tend to force a decentralization which has already happened with legalization of pot and other matters which was unthinkable even in the seventies.  This suggests the pre 1865 view of the Federal Government is reasserting itself.  Given other technologies that are in their infancy, it seems likely that the nation state is facing a long term secular decline. Rebellion will depend on if the political class gives in to reality.  Recent history does not make me optimistic.

I don't think it's wise to bank on a return to an era that has virtually nothing in common with the present.  We are seeing a worldwide move to disintegrate political unions of all types, EU, UK ... even the Czechs and Slovaks went their separate ways.  Something of that ilk may occur in the US, but it won't lead to a nation-of-states, like the earlier vision of the US.  It's more likely that a schism occurs, followed by the creation of two or three entities with more not less internal integration.  Even that is unlikely, but a lot more reasonable than a union that consists of a herd of cats.

[David Horn]

(09-28-2016, 11:34 PM)Galen Wrote: Unfortunately when governments get into fiscal trouble of the scale the West has now they choose to go to war since people are more willing to sacrifice their interests in the name of blind patriotism.  Now western governments have nukes and so they need either a war against an indefinable enemy and no well defined victory condition.  If the War on Terror is insufficient then a civil war might do the trick.  The last thing a politician ever wants to do is admit that the promises of the past can not be kept since it threatens their career.

I actually agree that it's easier to sell the public on massive spending during wartime than for peaceful pursuits.  You seem to agree, so why is weaponized Keynesianism preferable to the same actions without the pretense?  We know that massive spending works to kick start the economy when it gets bogged down, and  we also know that growth and mild inflation makes the accumulated debt unimportant in the not too distant future: witness the dramatic change between1945 and 1973 on all the war debt that was never paid down by a single dime:

Those were also the best years the US economy and, more to the point, US workers have experienced ever!  We could do that again, focusing on building a 21st century infrastructure that we will need soon in any case.  Of course, the less progressive among us will argue that this needs to be a private sector undertaking, all evidence to the contrary.

[Odin]

(09-26-2016, 12:28 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 06:53 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:32 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am well aware of the real cause for the war. But they used idealism (free black slaves) to justify the war and use people for what they really wanted. Not unlike religious wars.

The Civil War WAS about slavery, Tara, that is accepted by every legitimate historian. Galen is peddling extremist far-right wacko propaganda. The Civil War started because people in the southern states believed that they had a right to own other human beings.

Do you even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is?

A far-right crackpot who peddles Neo-Confederate BS. His crap ends up on Reddit's /r/BadHistory board a lot. Most of the posters on that board are actual historians, by the way.

[Galen]

(09-30-2016, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 12:28 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 06:53 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:32 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am well aware of the real cause for the war. But they used idealism (free black slaves) to justify the war and use people for what they really wanted. Not unlike religious wars.

The Civil War WAS about slavery, Tara, that is accepted by every legitimate historian. Galen is peddling extremist far-right wacko propaganda. The Civil War started because people in the southern states believed that they had a right to own other human beings.

Do you even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is?

A far-right crackpot who peddles Neo-Confederate BS. His crap ends up on Reddit's /r/BadHistory board a lot. Most of the posters on that board are actual historians, by the way.

Have you actually read his work and then followed up on his sources?  If not then you don't know anything.

[Odin]

I have better things to do in my life than read blatant RW propaganda that most other historians regard as complete trash.

[Mikebert]

A carpetbagger refers to white Northern abolitionists who came to the South after the Civil War to build the Republican party in the South.  They, freed slaves, and white Southerners who joined the Republican party (scalawags) after the war formed a Republican coalition that was able to win elections during Reconstruction, partly because Federal occupation forces enforced the 15th Amendment. As a result more than sixty Carpetbaggers plus a handful of blacks were elected as Republicans to Congress and hundreds to state positions. Carpetbaggers comprised most of the leadership of the black-majority Republican party and were a critical factor in Republican political success. No only that, but many worked in the Freedman's bureau, the program set up to enforce the political and economic changes that followed emancipation.  White Southern Democrats saw them as race-traitors as well as political enemies and hated them with an intensity that goes far beyond today's political divisions.

After the Federal troops pulled out in 1877, the scalawags moved back to the Democratic party as Republican strength collapsed in most of the South.  Republicans managed to elect governors in Tennessee in 1880 and Virginia in 1881, otherwise it was solidly Democratic in the 1880's.  During the 1890's the rise of the Populists created opportunities for political alliance between poor white Populist farmers and Southern (black) Republicans that mimicked the alliance between Northern populists and Northern Democrats. A fusion ticket of this type captured the North Carolina governorship in 1896 (the year William Jennings Bryan ran on the national Democratic/Populist fusion ticket).  A biracial coalition gained control of the city of Wilmington, which led North Carolina Democrats to mount and armed coup to seized control of the city back for the white planter class. 

Fears of this sort of thing throughout the South led to a flurry of state constitution changes over 1890-1908 that deprived black people of their voting rights. To discourage biracial coalitions from forming ever again, all the Southern states passed "Jim Crow" laws that enforced a kind of apartheid that kept the races from mixing and so ensured the political dominance of the South planter class. 

Over this same period a new generation of historians began to float the "Lost Cause" narrative about the Civil War that minimized or denied the central role of slavery.  Today, Lost Cause enthusiasts are often called NeoConfederates.  Galen appears to be one of these.