Boomers and the New World Order

[Ray9]

The boomer generation is probably the last vestige of free thinking Americans. The reason for this is probably because boomers were schooled in systems that predated the modern, global assault on American culture, traditions and most of all the constitution that created the United States. We were the "hippies" who experimented with free love and communal living and then got a haircut and a real job. The reason most of us came to our senses is because our education consisted mainly of learning to read, write and count so we could function in a world we could understand by our own perceptions, free from institutionalized indoctrination. Institutionalized indoctrination includes things like not allowing the Boy Scouts on school property because they won’t accept homosexuals or barring Christmas trees and Christmas greetings because they violate the separation of church and state or may offend groups that don’t recognize traditional holidays.

Boomers are aging now and many will be gone before the new world order that is now underway metastasizes to consume all remnants of individual liberty and freedom of thought. All of the major industries are abandoning their homeland to hang their shingle on foreign shores in a calculated effort to calibrate the American standard of living downward to level the global playing field. The post-boomer generation has been carefully prepared through relentless indoctrination to embrace the philosophy of groupism and self-hatred. Spanish signage in Walmart is the dark humor of the times as it heralds the onslaught of borderless and lawless societies and the death of sovereign nations. The boomers may be the last objective observers to witness the final destruction of the American Constitution as their descendants spinelessly acquiesce to the global socialism of The New World Order.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Causa Mortis]

The boomer generation is probably the last vestige of free thinking Americans. The reason for this is probably because boomers were schooled in systems that predated the modern, global assault on American culture, traditions and most of all the constitution that created the United States. We were the "hippies" who experimented with free love and communal living and then got a haircut and a real job. The reason most of us came to our senses is because our education consisted mainly of learning to read, write and count so we could function in a world we could understand by our own perceptions, free from institutionalized indoctrination. Institutionalized indoctrination includes things like not allowing the Boy Scouts on school property because they won’t accept homosexuals or barring Christmas trees and Christmas greetings because they violate the separation of church and state or may offend groups that don’t recognize traditional holidays.

Boomers are aging now and many will be gone before the new world order that is now underway metastasizes to consume all remnants of individual liberty and freedom of thought. All of the major industries are abandoning their homeland to hang their shingle on foreign shores in a calculated effort to calibrate the American standard of living downward to level the global playing field. The post-boomer generation has been carefully prepared through relentless indoctrination to embrace the philosophy of groupism and self-hatred. Spanish signage in Walmart is the dark humor of the times as it heralds the onslaught of borderless and lawless societies and the death of sovereign nations. The boomers may be the last objective observers to witness the final destruction of the American Constitution as their descendants spinelessly acquiesce to the global socialism of The New World Order.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Regurgitating Glenn Beck makes you a free thinker?

And, wait, groupism based on age is good, but groupism based on race is bad? "Free thinking" is great, so long as it leads you to be anti-immigration, pro-market, anti-gay and pro-materialism, otherwise its socialism and The New World Order?

[Undead Bonzi]

Aging Boomers account for the single largest and most active voting block currently in politics which means politicians pander to this generation above all others. These younger generations you loath so much have almost no political pull or presence at the moment and will not until the Boomer generation is gone. Thus the emergence of the NWO ect ect are happening on the watch and under the control of the Boomers. Uh oh.

[Hamburglar]

The boomer generation is probably the last vestige of free thinking Americans.
That's pretty subjective.
The reason for this is probably because boomers were schooled in systems that predated the modern, global assault on American culture, traditions and most of all the constitution that created the United States. We were the "hippies" who experimented with free love and communal living and then got a haircut and a real job.
Sounds pretty institutional to me....So you were free thinkers, or are free thinkers? I don't get it...

The reason most of us came to our senses is because our education consisted mainly of learning to read, write and count so we could function in a world we could understand by our own perceptions, free from institutionalized indoctrination. Hmmmm....public education sounds pretty institutional to me as well...You know they still teach us how to read write and count...except now we learn things like advanced statisitics/algebra/calculus, biochemistry, philosophy. Oh p.s. your school system was much more doctrinal than the modern system. You just happen to disagree with the doctrine it seems as evidenced by the following..

Institutionalized indoctrination includes things like not allowing the Boy Scouts on school property because they won’t accept homosexuals or barring Christmas trees and Christmas greetings because they violate the separation of church and state or may offend groups that don’t recognize traditional holidays. In a pluralistic society you have to make certain concessions. Private organizations are allowed to exclude mostly whomever they wish, but they definitely may not do so in public institutions. Did you know that Los Angeles Unified School District is home to over 200 languages/dialects and likely a correspondingly high number of religions. There comes a point where accommodating every one is a problem and just creating a level playing field is the best way to prevent problems-keep religion out of schools.

Boomers are aging now and many will be gone before the new world order that is now underway metastasizes to consume all remnants of individual liberty and freedom of thought.
I don't know if you grew up in the 1980's...but I did. Talk about being indoctrinated-jesus. Reagan was in my weekly reader being made to be a hero every issue. We HAD to pledge allegiance to the flag. People still talked about things like instituting a mandatory christian prayer period into our school schedule....

All of the major industries are abandoning their homeland to hang their shingle on foreign shores in a calculated effort to calibrate the American standard of living downward to level the global playing field.
Byproduct of capitalism...see the plethora of posts in the "capitalism et.al" thread.

The post-boomer generation has been carefully prepared through relentless indoctrination to embrace the philosophy of groupism and self-hatred.
Not to be a prick...buuuuuut:
We were the "hippies" who experimented with free love and communal living and then got a haircut and a real job. Groupism??? I think so. I think the word you were looking for to describe 'us' was "humanism". But I can't purport to speak for my cohorts.

Spanish signage in Walmart is the dark humor of the times as it heralds the onslaught of borderless and lawless societies and the death of sovereign nations.
I bet you would have said the same thing in the 50-60's when the dastardly businesses were selling products directly to the evil negro in a way they could relate to, right?

The boomers may be the last objective observers to witness the final destruction of the American Constitution as their descendants spinelessly acquiesce to the global socialism of The New World Order.

Is that self-anointed? The only socialistic notion of the new world order is that we ought to work together to make capitalism work.....but okay? REVOLUTIONARY!!!!! SCREEECH!

[Ray9]

This new world order theory goes a long way to explain the behavior of high ranking government officials regarding border issues in the US, the Bush administration particularly. In 2005 border Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean fired shots on and wounded fleeing drug smuggler Osvadlo Aldrete-Davila who was in the country illegally, transporting 743 pounds of marijuana. Federal prosecutors then gave Aldrete-Davila blanket immunity to return to the US and give testimony against the agents. They then suppressed evidence showing that aldrete-Davila continued smuggling drugs even while in the US to testify. Ramos and Campean were given stiff sentences for violating the civil rights of a Hispanic drug smuggler even though they themselves are both Hispanic. The case against the border agents was initiated at the behest of the Mexican government and the trial of ultimate political correctness resulted in their convictions. This incident occurred because there is an agenda to create a single world government and in order to do that the sovereignty of nations cannot be recognized. This agenda is so powerful that it encompasses both political parties in the United States as well as most of the mass media.

The incredible truth is that the forces of this agenda consider the drugs being smuggled into the United States to be an essential part of building the New World Order. They believe that Mexico is providing a service to the agenda by keeping America’s drug users well supplied, docile and unlikely to question changes that dramatically affect the lives of all Americans. This has been going on for a long time now under the noses of the American people and it is one explanation as to why there is no headway in the war on drugs.

Ramos and Campean were released but the message was clear: Allow Mexico to supply drugs to the US. These powerful individuals have declared war on the Constitution and the drugs are a valuable weapon in the struggle create a one world government.

[Nite Fise]

There always has and always will be a majority of stupid people and a minority of free-thinkers. Obeying traditions doesn't make someone more free-thinking.

[Kalarchis]

there is an agenda to create a single world government and in order to do that the sovereignty of nations cannot be recognized. This agenda is so powerful that it encompasses both political parties in the United States as well as most of the mass media.

What agenda to create a single world government? I hear little from the media and other sources except opposition to such a thing. The Republicans especially start frothing at the mouth when someone mentions globalization or a coming together of the world's nations. Anyway, I see a "single world government" as something of a natural result of the flattening of the world, in just the same way that we have the European Union and the United Nations. As technology makes the world smaller and smaller, there grows a need for an encompassing regulatory body that goes beyond individual sovereignty. That doesn't mean that there isn't individual sovereignty. Just that there's something beyond it.

Think about it this way: My body is made up of billions of cells. These cells are all individuals and have their own internal structure and their own actions, but they all come together to make me.

The incredible truth is that the forces of this agenda consider the drugs being smuggled into the United States to be an essential part of building the New World Order. They believe that Mexico is providing a service to the agenda by keeping America’s drug users well supplied, docile and unlikely to question changes that dramatically affect the lives of all Americans. This has been going on for a long time now under the noses of the American people and it is one explanation as to why there is no headway in the war on drugs.

The other explanation as to why there is no headway on the war on drugs, one considerably less "CONSPIRACY!!!," is that the paper industry and the pharmaceuticals and the prison complexes enjoy their money and so lobby politicians to keep things moving the way they are. I doubt it has anything to do with some imaginary "New World Order" (what is this, Brave New World?) and more to do with the fact that people like their cash.

This whole thing strikes me as "OMG world gov is out to get us," and "Waa waa, things were better when I was growing up." Lovely. This (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) should be of interest.

[lurk]

Think about it this way: My body is made up of billions of cells. These cells are all individuals and have their own internal structure and their own actions, but they all come together to make me.

Yes but your cells are hardly autonomous in the sense that you are. Your ass can't stay in bed while the rest of you goes to work, for example. ;) Questions of nations and cultures is, of course, a different thing.


The other explanation as to why there is no headway on the war on drugs, one considerably less "CONSPIRACY!!!," is that the paper industry and the pharmaceuticals and the prison complexes enjoy their money and so lobby politicians to keep things moving the way they are. I doubt it has anything to do with some imaginary "New World Order" (what is this, Brave New World?) and more to do with the fact that people like their cash.

This whole thing strikes me as "OMG world gov is out to get us," and "Waa waa, things were better when I was growing up." Lovely. This (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) should be of interest.

And who exactly is it that will administrate your post-modern global utopia except the same machiavellian politicians wearing different hats, beholden to different interests and spouting different platitudes? I wonder how many people living in Mao's workers paradise in the 50's & 60's think their life was better in the "good old days".

FWIW, I agree that the current war on drugs is a counter productive exercise in futility, and is basically evil.

[SirJac]

NWO makes me laugh. The term is thrown around so freely and is so vague that it is essentially meaningless. The only thing that anyone can agree about it is that it about a change in world order, which is constantly changing anyways. When has the world order ever been stagnent? Even over the past century the balance of power has shifted so many times that "old world power" can mean anything from the balance after world war one to the American hegemony after the fall of the Soviet Union. And even that has been changed significantly with events triggered by 9/11 and the rise of China.

Then consider how dramatically the internet has changed the exchange of information and it's no wonder that the dynamics of world power have sped up over the last 15 years. It seems to me that playing the NWO bogeyman card is just a sign that the person is afraid of how fast the world is changing. A constantly changing world is the rule, not the exception, best get used to it.

[Pandemonium]

I thought the NWO was more of an quasi-capitalist movement or some sort modern instigation of feudalism. *shrugs*

I am more amused by having to pay air tax. Public hysteria at its finest.

[Causa Mortis]

I thought the NWO was more of an quasi-capitalist movement or some sort modern instigation of feudalism. *shrugs*

I am more amused by having to pay air tax. Public hysteria at its finest.

Nah, its more of a backwoods conservative myth. Something about the UN, global wealth redistribution, jews, and black helicopters.

[Aronnax]

I thought the NWO was more of an quasi-capitalist movement or some sort modern instigation of feudalism. *shrugs*

"New World Order" is simply a buzz word and the phrase is used so widely by so many people that it's effectively meaningless.


The definitions range from a global socialist society headed by UN to a hypercapitalist society that will depress worker wages so the 1% can have more yachts. It's a fun little phrase because it invokes visions of jack booted thugs telling you how to live, regardless of your political stance.

The NWO is used to invoke fear, uncertainty and doubt; it's an acceptable boogyman organization in any good conspiracy theory. It's also interchangeable with the names of wealthy families (vanderbilts, Rothschilds, Rockefeller, ect...) and secret organizations (Illuminati, Freemasons ect...).

[Ray9]

The NWO is used to invoke fear, uncertainty and doubt; it's an acceptable boogyman organization in any good conspiracy theory. It's also interchangeable with the names of wealthy families (vanderbilts, Rothschilds, Rockefeller, ect...) and secret organizations (Illuminati, Freemasons ect...).

Ordinarily I would agree with this but look at some facts. The United States is the most powerful country in the history of the planet. Every four years there is a presidential election and who do we get for candidates? The clintons, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Bushes etc. All are members of CFR. In fact every president in recent memory has been a member with the exception of Harry Truman who was heavily advised by a cabinate loaded with CFR members. Does it not seem odd that in a country with a population of three hundred million that better candidates do not emerge? Could it be that the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are put in place by elite commitees so the deck is stacked before we vote? This theory explains a lot about what has happened and is happening as we speak.

[Stickman]

Ordinarily I would agree with this but look at some facts. The United States is the most powerful country in the history of the planet. Every four years there is a presidential election and who do we get for candidates? The clintons, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Bushes etc. All are members of CFR. In fact every president in recent memory has been a member with the exception of Harry Truman who was heavily advised by a cabinate loaded with CFR members. Does it not seem odd that in a country with a population of three hundred million that better candidates do not emerge? Could it be that the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are put in place by elite commitees so the deck is stacked before we vote? This theory explains a lot about what has happened and is happening as we speak.

It's the baby boomer's that vote for and constitute these parties. Boomers are also the richest of all age groups and have the most influence over US politics by being the largest age block and owning the most stock. What the hell are you talking about?

[Hamburglar]

Ordinarily I would agree with this but look at some facts. The United States is the most powerful country in the history of the planet. Every four years there is a presidential election and who do we get for candidates? The clintons, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Bushes etc. All are members of CFR. In fact every president in recent memory has been a member with the exception of Harry Truman who was heavily advised by a cabinate loaded with CFR members. Does it not seem odd that in a country with a population of three hundred million that better candidates do not emerge? Could it be that the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are put in place by elite commitees so the deck is stacked before we vote? This theory explains a lot about what has happened and is happening as we speak.

Ray-are you studying the stars with your ass? There are ways of looking at things, then there are Ways:suspicious: of looking a things.

Even if things were exactly as you state they are...what changes? Are you willing to give that up and live in a less powerful/affluent nation?

[Causa Mortis]

Ordinarily I would agree with this but look at some facts. The United States is the most powerful country in the history of the planet. Every four years there is a presidential election and who do we get for candidates? The clintons, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Bushes etc. All are members of CFR. In fact every president in recent memory has been a member with the exception of Harry Truman who was heavily advised by a cabinate loaded with CFR members. Does it not seem odd that in a country with a population of three hundred million that better candidates do not emerge? Could it be that the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are put in place by elite commitees so the deck is stacked before we vote? This theory explains a lot about what has happened and is happening as we speak.

Ray,

Please explain the role of Jews, the UN, and Global Wealth Redistribution in the NWO so that everyone can have the entire theory explained to them.

The whole NWO thing is kind of like Mormonism; bits make sense and have emotional appeal, but if you see the whole picture you can't do much besides giggle.

[deinotes]

Ray,

Please explain the role of Jews, the UN, and Global Wealth Redistribution in the NWO so that everyone can have the entire theory explained to them.

The whole NWO thing is kind of like Mormonism; bits make sense and have emotional appeal, but if you see the whole picture you can't do much besides giggle.
The NWO can never be proven without a doubt.
I think a lot of the groups that are be portrayed to be part of the NWO are infact independent groups, look at the PNAC (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) didn't that blew up in the NWO it's face ?
I think the NWO is a easy way to explain the things that happens at a high level of politics.
And gives way to much credit to a boogie men behind the screens instead of the greed and stupidity at the top.

[Nemesis]

Here's another article by Melvin Sickler, who is the guy Ray cited in the OP.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, this is all being orchestrated by scary Satanists! C'mon Ray, give us an article from a half-way decent source. I've seen plenty of poor sourcing on this forum, but this is out of hand.

*Sets tinfoil hat aside for yet another night.*

[alrightgame]

Prison camps will define a new world order. Until then, I will enjoy listening to both Obama, Rush, and Alex Jones, as they all play spin city.

"Why are you so paranoid, Mulder?"
"Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because I find it hard to trust anybody."
- Scully & Mulder, The X-Files, "Ascension"

[boldbidder]

The boomer generation is probably the last vestige of free thinking Americans. The reason for this is probably because boomers were schooled in systems that predated the modern, global assault on American culture, traditions and most of all the constitution that created the United States. We were the "hippies" who experimented with free love and communal living and then got a haircut and a real job. The reason most of us came to our senses is because our education consisted mainly of learning to read, write and count so we could function in a world we could understand by our own perceptions, free from institutionalized indoctrination. Institutionalized indoctrination includes things like not allowing the Boy Scouts on school property because they won’t accept homosexuals or barring Christmas trees and Christmas greetings because they violate the separation of church and state or may offend groups that don’t recognize traditional holidays.

Boomers are aging now and many will be gone before the new world order that is now underway metastasizes to consume all remnants of individual liberty and freedom of thought. All of the major industries are abandoning their homeland to hang their shingle on foreign shores in a calculated effort to calibrate the American standard of living downward to level the global playing field. The post-boomer generation has been carefully prepared through relentless indoctrination to embrace the philosophy of groupism and self-hatred. Spanish signage in Walmart is the dark humor of the times as it heralds the onslaught of borderless and lawless societies and the death of sovereign nations. The boomers may be the last objective observers to witness the final destruction of the American Constitution as their descendants spinelessly acquiesce to the global socialism of The New World Order.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ray, you need to practice a lil Stephen Covey; seek first to understand then be understood. You may not realize this, but you bemoaning the the wonders of the past is downright inflammatory to anyone who isn't in your demographic or grew up like you. Baby boomer or not. Do you think my Dad longs for the 'free-thinking' of yester-year, and he's a Boomer just like you?

Don't let the silo of your own personal experience close you off to the world around and progress in general.

[lurk]

Re-reading my previous post (#8 above) it strikes me as more abrupt that I intended. My apologies.

FWIW I think a lot of boomers, myself included, are feeling they've been working and saving and doing what they thought was generally the right thing, and now it all appears to be going up in smoke. Social Security has proven to be an oxymoronic ponzi scheme and the republicrats have meanwhile spent us into oblivion.

I recognized a while ago that there's no way all of the boomers that expected to retire on their 401K's could possibly succeed - there'd be nobody standing in the wings to buy their stock. My personal opinion is that we've only seen the first wave of the great meltdown, and the living standard in the US will continue to head south.

[Pandemonium]

My father is a boomer and a quite intelligent one. He is a chemical engineer. However, he has been indoctrinated into believing that terrorist want to kill him (dramatized). These terrorist he are supposedly from the Middle East or South East Asia and are people who follow the faith of Islam. Yes, he has fallen into the bah habit of racial stereotyping. At least he is a die hard socialist (not a communist).

My argument is that baby boomers are just as susceptible to fall for the propaganda of the day.

[Ray9]

When I started this thread I did not mean to infer that only boomers can think freely. The point I was trying to get across is that the field of education has become so politicized that students are exposed to propaganda that was not part of the deal when we were in school. If I were a student in high school today I would probably already have a very jaded opinion of the world.

[Kalarchis]

When I started this thread I did not mean to infer that only boomers can think freely. The point I was trying to get across is that the field of education has become so politicized that students are exposed to propaganda that was not part of the deal when we were in school. If I were a student in high school today I would probably already have a very jaded opinion of the world.

I agree, but I think it goes that way for every generation. We must also remember that kids today have grown up with the internet, which changed the whole playing field (and still is.) It's much easier today to be jaded with the world than it was 50 years ago, I think. The same thing could be said about the generations that grew up with television versus those that didn't, and those who had radio when their parents didn't, etc. I think a lot of the concerns you have expressed, and a lot of the general concerns that lead to things like the NWO conspiracy theory, are the result of generational/technological clashes. When my kids are growing up with Virtual Reality my generation is going to be going through the same old spiel.

[lurk]

My argument is that baby boomers are just as susceptible to fall for the propaganda of the day.

I concur. I think that because, as a group, they are frightened and angry, it makes them even more susceptible to demagoguery.

The point I was trying to get across is that the field of education has become so politicized that students are exposed to propaganda that was not part of the deal when we were in school.

I would change the word politicized to polarized. When I was in school in the 50's the commies were boogeymen, and we were in a fight to the death with socialism. Now it seems that globalization and socialized medicine and nationalization of companies that are 'too big to fail' is the order of day. This is pretty much the antithesis of I internalized at an early age.

My problem is that I've seen the politicians and the big-money business folks who control them lay waste to the economy and steal the wealth of millions of hard working people. If they can do that in the US where the government supposedly works for the people, what will happen as national sovereignty is relinquished in the name of globalism?

[Mader]

You may think I am off on a tangent, but I plan to stay just on the borderline, here. Speaking as a white, US, female, born at the end of the generation Baby-boomer.

It is the weekend so the TV has been on - including "SuperNanny" and some tough parent-type show on MTV (troubled kids stay with different families for a couple weeks to gain some new perspective). Add in quite a dose of personal experience and observation among my generation and the generation that came after.

I think that we, BabyBoomers, had a pretty good life handed to us by our parents after WWII. We Babyboomers have been accused of selfishness and demanding immediate gratification. We also faced Civil Rights, government corruption at the highest levels which our country never faced before, The Bay of Pigs, the Russian Missile Crisis, a post WWII economy, Vatican II (hey, I 'm not Catholic! Well, when 1/3 of the world population is strongly influenced by a particular Church, yes you were effected) and a post-WWII paradigm. Not Boomers are like this, but the direction I am going here is that we Babyboomers didn't have to fight the same fight that our parents and grandparents did - many of us did not have to struggle just to eat as our elders did, we did not fight for the survival of our country, we did not face the Holocaust, face the Nuremburg Trials, the Marshall Plan. We did not experience the loss of humanity, within our own little towns and villages that our parents and grandparents did in WWII (or WWI). This made us a bit selfish and self-absorbed, and frankly, some of us were lousy parents - we did a poor job of raising our own children (no sacrifice for me, I can have it all), we placed our wants above our children's needs, and in some ways we continue to do this. I see the younger people, and the younger parents in particular, struggling to understand the complexity of life, the shear amount of work involved in being successful in any area of life, and we may have not given our young adults the step by step instructions that make life work better. Many of us spent our time being "yuppies", buying Volvos and food processors, focusing on the job promotion to the detriment of our family life. Young people struggle when it is clear that a bit of effort and guidance has been missing.

We did not bother to teach our children how to think, how to make decisions and how to follow thru on the tough jobs. We sometimes didn't even teach our children how to be parents. The Washington Post had a short op about the evils of "time out, reward positive behavior" discipline. The writer suggests that we damage our children when we demand they behave in a civil, respectful and productive manner - we should just live unconditionally, not love unconditionally and guide/advise, just 'love'. You cannot learn to be an adult, you cannot learn to make reasonable, responsible decisions in a vacuum.

Free thinking needs to be within a context. Yes, we should all be free to discuss, mull, and challenge the status quo when needed. But we have begun to abdicate our personal responsiblity - we are outsourcing our judgement, decision making, and benefits because it is easier to do this rather than do the heavy lifting required to retain our former balance of freedom/responsibilities/self-determination.

I know this sounds as tho I am saying that "the world is going to hell" and "this generation is lousy", "the world is coming to an end". I don't mean to be terribly critical of those younger than me, I am laying more blame at my own feet. We wanted our lives to be easy, sometimes the easy way is not the best way

I am not sure we Baby-boomers are free thinkers. I agree that many are, but it is not for the sake of freedom or the glorification of humanity - it is often immediate gratification and short term goals. By not helping the next generation understand the world and the failures of humanity, we have not fulfilled our responsibility to you, our responsibility to teach you to think for yourself, to learn to ask the right questions, to understand human nature, to keep your feet in reality.

There are also great differences between being free-thinking and not giving a shit what othersthink/want/need.

Free thinking is about the betterment of mankind. Free thinking should be ingrained in our culture - maybe it is, maybe we Americans are genetically geared to free, independent thinking and the failure of previous generations to teach the next generation to think will be overcome. I hope so.

[Pandemonium]

From my general analysis of American culture through the tubes it would seem that America itself is a religion. The American propaganda has been frequently noticed through out this country but many choose to ignore it. The word democracy is going to kill me one day.

Sigh, I fail to understand americans. Especially when it comes to ideological, political and economic debates due to the different use of language.

The parents did one thing right and that was in regards to teaching me how to critically analyze information.

[stasis]

I think the baby boom is possibly the most narcissistic generation ever to exist. Their legacy shall be largely one of self-congratulation, autoerotic backslapping, and endless other masturbatory accolades. Infomercial goings-on about how watershed they (still!!1) are. Oh, the cosmic significance of the whole thing. The vibes; it was reeely something. Everything changed, man. Emphasis, emphasis, emphasis - an avalanche of bullshit. All generations usher change.

Meanwhile, the world remains full of backward and resolutely barbaric horror. Good job attending those concerts and smoking all of that dope, that worked. Too much of the subculture ends up looking like a protracted fart in comparison to that of the great generation before them and it'll be nice when death finally silences all of this woebegone horn-blowing. Last line of defense against the New World Order? You've got to be joking. The boomers aren't even warding off diapers these days.

[8fishpimp8]

we should guard against characterizing an entire movement by name calling or associating a movement with the personality of a single whacko...

How many environmentalist would stand shoulder to shoulder with Ted Kazinski(sp)...

that is the uni-bomber for those that don't know.


Another thing.....just because your liberal professor heaped praise upon you for concurring with his/her dogma, it is still good advice to continuing to seek and learn.


There are groups in this nation that want to see the social safety net overloaded to the breaking point. They believe that this will bring about the opportunity to initiate social change on a tectonic scale .

This is not hyperbole or paranoia, it is in their mission statement......

Seek and learn.

[RBM]

we should guard against characterizing an entire movement by name calling or associating a movement with the personality of a single whacko...

I would agree with '... name calling'. I strongly disagree with 'associating ... single whacko'

For example, see this post Lie Machine (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which is about a couple high profile lies, the high profile of consideration they received from the target audience, and most importantly ("Seek and Learn") the associated creators with the associated initial works (in this case lies) to the cause.

This is important because it gives context. There is more value to be derived from that point, but I hope one who reads this and the link can do the thinking for themselves.

[Stickman]

When I started this thread I did not mean to infer that only boomers can think freely. The point I was trying to get across is that the field of education has become so politicized that students are exposed to propaganda that was not part of the deal when we were in school. If I were a student in high school today I would probably already have a very jaded opinion of the world.

I wasn't around back then but didn't the boomers grow up during the cold war, thus subjected to a lot of McCarthyism? From the perspective of baby boomers, schools today must be rife with leftist propaganda but in reality it's simply the lack of McCarthyist propaganda that ironically gives boomers the illusion that schools are teaching propaganda.

[lurk]

From the perspective of baby boomers, schools today must be rife with leftist propaganda but in reality it's simply the lack of McCarthyist propaganda that ironically gives boomers the illusion that schools are teaching propaganda.
It's all propaganda, it's just different propaganda.





lurk added to this post, 18 minutes and 40 seconds later...


For example, see this post Lie Machine (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which is about a couple high profile lies, the high profile of consideration they received from the target audience, and most importantly ("Seek and Learn") the associated creators with the associated initial works (in this case lies) to the cause.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories but find it interesting that that bastion of nonpartisanship, Rolling Stone, doesn't find anything wrong with the planning activities of MoveOn and Acorn that are probably instigated by some liberal equivalent to Frank Luntz. (Note that the blog didn't even get his name right)

[Stickman]

It's all propaganda, it's just different propaganda.


Well, America seems to have 2 versions of reality that aren't at all consistent with each other.

If we were to teach our kids that America is the last bastion of freedom, Christianity and righteousness under siege by communists and Muslims then the left sees it as nationalistic propaganda comparable to the pride and hubris the Nazis spewed out prior to WW2.

On the other hand if we were to tell kids that America and capitalism has flaws then that reaffirms the narrative of a communist plot, that liberals are anti-American traitors and our freedoms are indeed under attack.

There's no 'balanced' view. It's impossible to reconcile both of these things. Emotionally, both sides are invested so deeply in their respective ideas that the mere suggestion that they're wrong will probably evoke anger, harsh words and sometimes the threat of violence. Any evidence or facts that disputes their point of view will be ignored, placed under an unreasonable amount of scrutiny or subjected to philosophical inquiry until it's reduced to a nihilistic mess.

[RBM]

It's all propaganda, it's just different propaganda.

lurk added to this post, 18 minutes and 40 seconds later...


I'm not big on conspiracy theories but find it interesting that that bastion of nonpartisanship, Rolling Stone, doesn't find anything wrong with the planning activities of MoveOn and Acorn that are probably instigated by some liberal equivalent to Frank Luntz. (Note that the blog didn't even get his name right)

My point was about associating works with the creator of those works for the purpose of understanding the intent of the creators.

What has "Conspiracy theory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" got to do with my comment or the link content ?

Who cares about "planning activities", see my above stated point.

Lies don't have a political ideology but you sure seem to.

Oh, Yeah, pointing out the misspelling of the name is SURELY a SUBSTANTIVE comment to my remark. /sarcasm

Have a Good Day.

[lurk]

Well, America seems to have 2 versions of reality that aren't at all consistent with each other.
It's certainly true in the media at least. It's hard for me to tell about the population in general since I don't put much stock in polls. The only thing I'm sure of is that either side seems to be able to muster 100,000 bodies on the Capitol Mall when they want to.

I think the media promotes the siege mentality by using any chink in somebody's armor, to discredit their entire world view.

[Stickman]

It's certainly true in the media at least. It's hard for me to tell about the population in general since I don't put much stock in polls. The only thing I'm sure of is that either side seems to be able to muster 100,000 bodies on the Capitol Mall when they want to.

I think the media promotes the siege mentality by using any chink in somebody's armor, to discredit their entire world view.

Unless you work in government or academia, most of the information you get from the outside world will ultimately come from the media.

[Hamburglar]

Unless you work in government or academia, most of the information you get from the outside world will ultimately come from the media.

While this is true, the majority of people outside of those two respective fields (and a few others related) will ultimately get their information second/third hand from someone else who watches the MM. That's what is scary.

[Stickman]

While this is true, the majority of people outside of those two respective fields (and a few others related) will ultimately get their information second/third hand from someone else who watches the MM. That's what is scary.

Yeah, this is what I actually meant. I suppose if you're a corporate exec or analyst you might know what's up in your respective industry.

[PunkinA]

I am not a baby boomer. I am however part of the NWO. I can say my cause is not as successful as I would like. Damned boomers have us covered at every angle. They outnumber us, they were here before us, they took all the good stuff, and now they expect the rest of us to pay for their retirement. Oh, and they got hold of the media as well. I only hear what they want me to hear. It's hard to run a revolution when your opposition has all the resources.

Okay, I am not part of an NWO, but I really don't think it would matter. The boomer generation is a well entrenched power structure that will always find itself in advantage. I just don't understand their paranoia. My opinion is, "If you got it, flaunt it."

I only feel insulted when my parents play the victim.

[LaoTzu]

Ray9: I'm not going to add much but to say that the continued polarization of right vs. left is what is to blame.
While we quibble about who the better party is, both parties are pushing the envelope of decency and morality.
You can blame schools all you like, but I disagree. Schools are necessary. I'll agree schools should stick to the 3 R's. It's up to parents to indoctrinate their young the right way.


The world right now is more free than it has ever been in the past, but you seem to think that it is lacking. You wouldnt be the first to see evil all around you, but then, you weren't around for the civil war... WWI , WWII etc... etc...


It's not the world that needs changing, just your perspective. You can find all you need right now, if you weren't too busy searching for boogeymen to blame the necessary evils that true balance would require.

[admittedheretic]

Information has never been more free.

I disagree that the baby boomers are more enlightened than younger generations.

A good example of the ignorance of the baby boomers is the United States War on Drugs. Stubborn baby boomers ignore everything do with science and refuse to give up the lies they where told as children. Another good example is disproportional beliefs in atheist with the baby boomers and those younger. The baby boomers, a generation of people who read the head lines and let the media form their opinion. A generation who feared their parents and thus allowed them to mold them in nearly every way. A generation who now complains that the new generations do not listen to them. The accusations are that the new generations aren't respectful, but the truth is they just aren't afraid. They conform to what they believe and not what they are told.

The medium of information has been changed for the better and so have the people. The baby booms are ever so arrogant to deny this.

[Ray9]

It's not the world that needs changing, just your perspective. You can find all you need right now, if you weren't too busy searching for boogeymen to blame the necessary evils that true balance would require.

I don't have to look very far to find boogeymen when it comes to this current administration. Today, in an address to the UN, Muammar Al-Gadafi, the Libyan leader of the country responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing and the deaths of all aboard Pan Am Flight 103, called Obama his "son" and the "son" of his countrymen. He also stated that He hoped Obama would remain President of the United states forever. This ringing endorsement of Obama by a terrorist killer speaks volumes about the present White House and our unfortunate leader. Obama's associations with terrorists past and present--Bill Ayers--Gadafi and his leadership position in in radical organizations like Acorn, are startling evidence that the White House is occupied by the left-lunatic fringe.

[Stickman]

Muammar Al-Gadafi

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

>Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi1 (Arabic: معمر القذافي‎ Ar-Muammar al-Qaddafi.ogg audio (help·info) Mu‘ammar al-Qaḏāfī; also known simply as Colonel Gaddafi; born 7 June 1942)

Tell us more about how baby-boomers are our last line of defense against young people.

[INTJRyan]

1953 was the peak of civilization and you are a commie if you think otherwise.

[Ray9]

1953 was the peak of civilization and you are a commie if you think otherwise

Funny you should bring up McCarthyism because the White House has a website dedicated to encouraging citizens to spy on and report fellow citizens who do not agree with the current healthcare proposal.

[Nemesis]

I don't have to look very far to find boogeymen when it comes to this current administration. Today, in an address to the UN, Muammar Al-Gadafi, the Libyan leader of the country responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing and the deaths of all aboard Pan Am Flight 103, called Obama his "son" and the "son" of his countrymen. He also stated that He hoped Obama would remain President of the United states forever. This ringing endorsement of Obama by a terrorist killer speaks volumes about the present White House and our unfortunate leader. Obama's associations with terrorists past and present--Bill Ayers--Gadafi and his leadership position in in radical organizations like Acorn, are startling evidence that the White House is occupied by the left-lunatic fringe.

The Bill Ayers thing was clearly blown way out of proportion by the right-wing media as a campaign time smear tactic. Also, maybe... just maybe... having big nasty scary foreign guys actually like your president is not a bad thing. Maybe it will make them want to kill you guys a little less. The Acorn connection that has been harped on over and over has been debunked. Just another smear tactic. Is Obama a saint? Hell no! Is he the embodiment of everything wrong with the world? Only to those who seek out scape goats. Obama is a commie, Obama is the antichrist, Obama is a fascist, Obama is a terrorist, Obama is a nazi... blah blah blah. The butt-hurt far left wingers said the same thing about both Bush (senior and junior) and Reagan. At the end of the day, these guys are the same old scummy weasel politicians as they have ever been. Not even the rhetoric changes; just the face that it gets slapped on. And you fall for it again and again.

The more I read these political threads started by (many, but not all) boomer aged, right (or left) wing folks, the more you guys start to sound exactly the same as one another. Same tired points, same tired arguments, same tired biases, and same tired spoon-fed rhetoric repackaged and puked out over and over. I honestly can't see any difference in the rationality between you guys and the rationality served up by the talking heads on the news. "Free-thinkers"? I don't see that at all.

I'm not saying the younger generation is any better. In fact, I think we are turning out to be the same greed fueled sheep that the boomers turned out to be. But, we grew up knowing how to get information from millions of sources at a moments notice. Our generation are information junkies. That's why we are having this discussion on an internet forum. How this will turn out is anyone's guess. But, I don't think it's a big stretch to say that all the things you see wrong with the world and the younger generation is just a reflection of your own generation's shortcomings.

[Stickman]

Funny you should bring up McCarthyism because the White House has a website dedicated to encouraging citizens to spy on and report fellow citizens who do not agree with the current healthcare proposal.

Assuming this was true, it's nothing new. Bush actively spied on it's citizens and planted agents within the ranks of protesters and groups that didn't agree with him. People were thrown into jail for walking along the same street as anti-war protesters even if they wern't protesters themselves.





Stickman added to this post, 3 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Not to excuse Obama's actions (if it were true, and I think I know what you're talking about and it's disingenuous, but let's not go there) but the point is that the new generation isn't doing anything worse then what the old one did.

[RBM]

Not to excuse Obama's actions (if it were true, and I think I know what you're talking about and it's disingenuous, but let's not go there) but the point is that the new generation isn't doing anything worse then what the old one did.

Yeah, it's just more of essentially the same, 'chartists' would suggest a look at the trend line, if one could do a historical study of such.

[alrightgame]

How many of this generation will be quoted in documents a thousand years from now and taught to whoever is alive? Maybe a handful of scientists and mathematicians? An economist or two? Doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on here.

[Nemesis]

How many of this generation will be quoted in documents a thousand years from now and taught to whoever is alive? Maybe a handful of scientists and mathematicians? An economist or two? Doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on here.

Sadly, I don't even think this will happen. We now live in an age where the educated are actually looked down upon. Now, we hold those with mediocre minds and fat wallets as the paragons of society. The only person who will be quoted is "Larry the Cableguy".

[Profit]

I don't have to look very far to find boogeymen when it comes to this current administration. Today, in an address to the UN, Muammar Al-Gadafi, the Libyan leader of the country responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing and the deaths of all aboard Pan Am Flight 103, called Obama his "son" and the "son" of his countrymen. He also stated that He hoped Obama would remain President of the United states forever. This ringing endorsement of Obama by a terrorist killer speaks volumes about the present White House and our unfortunate leader. Obama's associations with terrorists past and present--Bill Ayers--Gadafi and his leadership position in in radical organizations like Acorn, are startling evidence that the White House is occupied by the left-lunatic fringe.

I actually watched the speech and what Gadafi was saying was that he and other Africans were proud that a son of Africa, and an African, was now the president of the US. How does this statement create a relationship between Obama and Gadafi? After his comment about Obama he then went on to bash the US and the UN and rant about global conspiracies...come to think of it you and might want to check it out.

[Ray9]

I actually watched the speech and what Gadafi was saying was that he and other Africans were proud that a son of Africa, and an African, was now the president of the US. How does this statement create a relationship between Obama and Gadafi? After his comment about Obama he then went on to bash the US and the UN and rant about global conspiracies...come to think of it you and might want to check it out.


Obama's speech was even more disturbing. He made several statements that appear to reaveal his abandonment of the state of Israel which is the perfect recipe for the start of World War Three. The pompous arrogance and almost child-like naivete of this unfortunate leader of the world's most powerful country is profoundly unsettling.

[Valiyn]

How is that the perfect recipe for world war three? Having the US backing Israel and the Soviet Union backing a few Arab states almost has caused a nuclear war in the past. The US no longer backing Israel is a step towards peace in the region as you no longer have a big bully (any superpower) blatantly meddling around (partly anyway). Not to mention that at this current state in time Germany is Israel's biggest supporter, not the US.

The pompous arrogance and almost child-like naivete of this unfortunate leader of the world's most powerful country is profoundly unsettling.

What is it that you see brewing over there the rest of the world is blind to? Armageddon? The rise of the Anti-Christ? Darth Vader? You're going to need to be more specific on how removing support for Israel 1) Is a very bad thing 2) Relates to the NWO and Boomers and 3)What you think is going on to clarify why you feel Obama is being naive?

[alrightgame]

I personally belief and hope that you will be wrong. My personal hero was Ghandhi. He did so much good with so little that it almost disobeyed laws of conservation. If we can repeat the mistakes of today in the future, I can only hope that we repeat the good things from the past as well.

Edit: quotes and letters

Einstein on Gandhi

Albert Einstein

"I believe that Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time.

We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in anything you believe is evil." Albert Einstein

Translation:
Respected Mr. Gandhi !
I use the presence of your friend in our home to send you these lines. You have shown through your works, that it is possible to succeed without violence even with those who have not discarded the method of violence. We may hope that your example will spread beyond the borders of your country, and will help to establish an international authority, respected by all, that will take decisions and replace war conflicts.
With sincere admiration,
Yours A. Einstein.
I hope that I will be able to meet you face to face some day.

[Nemesis]

I personally belief and hope that you will be wrong.
Albert Einstein

"I believe that Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time.

We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in anything you believe is evil." Albert Einstein


I sincerely hope that you are correct. :) The unfortunate thing is that such quotes will only be remembered if they are representative of the time period and the people who lived in it. "Git 'er done" seems to be much more reflective of the world's attitude. I do think Ghandi and Einstein (among many others) have provided incredibly beautiful and valuable commentary. But, our "Git 'er done" world has to catch up with such sentiments before any future generations will bother to take anything we have done seriously.

[LaoTzu]

Oh Ray.... do you not recall that it was the Bushies who warmed the ties with Libya????

But now, a year later, Gaddafi and Bush do apparently see eye to eye. On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history's great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. -Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy
By SCOTT MACLEOD/CAIRO Tuesday, May. 16, 2006 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


You're reaching my friend. Reaching.
Don't be blinded by hate.

[Ray9]

You're reaching my friend. Reaching.
Don't be blinded by hate.



Gaddafi "played ball" because it was in his interest to do so. His love for Obama is anchored in his hatred for Jews and his belief that Obama will kick them to the curb to appease Islam.


How is that the perfect recipe for world war three?



Israel has nuclear weapons and systems to deliver them. They will never relinquish territory gained in the '67 war which is what Obama was hinting at in his speech. If Israel is attacked and believes it can no longer count on the US it will likely resort to the nuclear option to defend itself.

[Valiyn]

They will never relinquish territory gained in the '67 war.
Yes, they have even. In 1982 Israel relinquished control of the Sinai that they gained in 1967.


Using nuclear weapons is not a survival option - they will not use them to survive. Show me one good textbook on military theory that even comes close to evening stating this. Even in the height of the cold war, nuclear weapons were never about survival. They were about bringing the other guy to hell with you.

[Profit]

Gaddafi "played ball" because it was in his interest to do so. His love for Obama is anchored in his hatred for Jews and his belief that Obama will kick them to the curb to appease Islam.



First, you still haven't told me how Gaddafi saying Africans were proud to have a son of Africa as president of the US creates an intimate relationship between him and Obama. Second, are you saying that Obama hates Jews and secretly wants to help destroy the state of Israel?

[Stickman]

Obama's speech was even more disturbing. He made several statements that appear to reaveal his abandonment of the state of Israel which is the perfect recipe for the start of World War Three. The pompous arrogance and almost child-like naivete of this unfortunate leader of the world's most powerful country is profoundly unsettling.

This is pretty much why the right and the left will never see eye to eye. Everything you like about Obama is likable by the left. What you call weakness is what the left considers a mature foreign policy based on a foundation of respect, not fear.

When the divide widens and conservatives and liberals no longer have anything in common the country will split in two.

[Pandemonium]

This is pretty much why the right and the left will never see eye to eye. Everything you like about Obama is likable by the left. What you call weakness is what the left considers a mature foreign policy based on a foundation of respect, not fear.

When the divide widens and conservatives and liberals no longer have anything in common the country will split in two.

I really don't comprehend this american conservative - liberal divide. These two parties seem to really dislike each other.

[Hamburglar]

Funny you should bring up McCarthyism because the White House has a website dedicated to encouraging citizens to spy on and report fellow citizens who do not agree with the current healthcare proposal.

Gaddafi "played ball" because it was in his interest to do so. His love for Obama is anchored in his hatred for Jews and his belief that Obama will kick them to the curb to appease Islam.
Israel has nuclear weapons and systems to deliver them. They will never relinquish territory gained in the '67 war which is what Obama was hinting at in his speech. If Israel is attacked and believes it can no longer count on the US it will likely resort to the nuclear option to defend itself.

Oh- Islam is Monolithic all of a sudden? Shit-how do we deal with it Ray, Containment?

Obama didn't kick Israel to the curb, he just pulled them off the USA Tit and put a leash on the bitch. Big Difference.

Israel has nuclear weapons? Prove it!

They will never relinquish territory? Never, say never Ray. Lincoln never expected the south to secede!

Don't think for one second that China is not economically integrated in the middle east. They will use their weapons stockpile to threaten Israel into compliance if they ever launched a total war against the middle east. Israel launching nukes would be the worst tactical decision ever made. Israel is becoming the Bosnia of wwii, a Powderkeg of completing world interests. Kudos to Obama for attempting put Israel in its place-Israel acts like it's a saint when it's really just carrying out a holocaust against the Palestinians, no irony there.

[Ray9]

Don't think for one second that China is not economically integrated in the middle east. They will use their weapons stockpile to threaten Israel into compliance if they ever launched a total war against the middle east. Israel launching nukes would be the worst tactical decision ever made. Israel is becoming the Bosnia of wwii, a Powderkeg of completing world interests. Kudos to Obama for attempting put Israel in its place-Israel acts like it's a saint when it's really just carrying out a holocaust against the Palestinians, no irony there.


Here is wisdom: The Jews were nearly annihilated through genocide. Everything they ever were, are or will be is invested in the state of Israel. This is their belief and their homeland is to be defended to the last man if necessary. They will never relent or surrender their dignity to any enemy. Never again means never again.


You would do well not to play fast and loose with a word like holocaust unless you know what it really means.

[Valiyn]

Again, what does this have to do with Baby boomers and a New World Order?

We're getting very far off-topic here.


Israel will not take on the whole world. They know they can, and have lost before. Israel's key to survival is fore planning ahead to avoid trouble. Taking out a leader of someone who can cause trouble is preferable to letting them live to start a new war regardless of what the act does to their dignity.

[Stickman]

Gaddafi "played ball"

I just watched his speech and he didn't strike me as the 'cool customer' type that patiently holds back his maniacal tendencies while waiting the perfect moment to pull out his 'gotcha' moment. He's more of the type to rant on about conspiracy theories. Maybe I'm being tricked and you're right and he's really pulling the wool over my eyes but then again I knew Bush was an idiot before and after 9/11 and it turns out I was right about that.

Unless you have more evidence of course. I'm always open to new information.

[SeaCzar]

This thread reminds me why, as if it were needed, no good ideas can bear fruit in this country (US). The polarizing cacophony of the right, and equally poisoning cacophony of the left screaming over the vast majority in the middle, muddling reality.

As far as the opening subject of this thread, the Baby Boomer generation is no better, or worse for that matter, than any other. The so called Greatest Generation was anything but. Sure, they fought a war that endangered everything the West had stood for: freedom, democracy. liberty. etc. But they lacked the balls to stop the conflagration of the Second World War before it started. The isolationist US, and the appeasers in Great Britain and France are specifically guilty of this. No one had the will to strangle Bolshevism in its cradle after the First World War, or to stop Hitler in the Rhineland before all of the real bullshit started.

And now we are considering our options in Afghanistan, whether to fight on or turn tail and run. If we turn tail, there will be an even bloodier conflict to deal with in the future.


Oh, how history does repeat. On and on and on and on.......

[Stickman]

As far as the opening subject of this thread, the Baby Boomer generation is no better, or worse for that matter, than any other. The so called Greatest Generation was anything but. Sure, they fought a war that endangered everything the West had stood for: freedom, democracy. liberty. etc.

The boomer's were born after WWII. Unless you're talking about the cold war, which wasn't really a war.

The best thing the boomer's did IMO was land on the moon, get out of Vietnam, invent the internet and the Marshal plan (Boomer's may have been too young for that one though). It wasn't a bad run. I'll give them credit for that much.

[pip]

The best thing the boomer's did IMO was:

land on the moon
If I recall, this was only done to stop the Russians from claiming the 'glory', otherwise no-one would have bothered.

get out of Vietnam
Public outcry achieved that. If you remember who sent the troops over there in the first place, you can't really attribute someone achieving something if they were effectively made to do it.

invent the internet and the Marshal plan (Boomer's may have been too young for that one though). It wasn't a bad run. I'll give them credit for that much.
No faults here :)
Don't forget rampant corporatism and privatisation, along with vulture funding and essentially bleeding the poorest nations in the world dry.
Pollution controls (or lack therof).
War on drugs.
War on terror.
(Next up: War on thought. :p )
Information distribution is the biggie though - they got that pretty close to spot on. So far...
*huggles internets*

[Profit]

The best thing the boomer's did IMO was land on the moon, get out of Vietnam, invent the internet and the Marshal plan (Boomer's may have been too young for that one though). It wasn't a bad run. I'll give them credit for that much.

Seeing how the boomer's were only kids during the Marshall Plan and teenagers or young adults during the moon landing I don't see how you can give them credit for either. As for the internet, most of the people working on projects in the 1960's and 70's that would lead to its development were born in the 1920's and 30's. I do give them credit for the Vietnam protest movement that helped to end US involvement in the war.





Profit added to this post, 2 minutes and 5 seconds later...

Ohh and they did give us some really great music.

[Hamburglar]

Not by any stretch of the imagination am I satisfied with the world that the boomers left for me. Now (thank you very much by the way, I hate to sound ungrateful) I, and my fellow gen X/Y Americans are going to have to spend several decades leveraging a new world from the Shart boomers bestowed upon us...President Obama is making a fine first start. Boomers would be well advised to sit down, and shut up unless they have something constructive to offer in the way of fixing the problems that exist. A paradigm shift has begun in America: Post-Boomer Politics and to quote P.Bush, "Either you're with us or you're against us". :D

[Stickman]

Seeing how the boomer's were only kids during the Marshall Plan and teenagers or young adults during the moon landing I don't see how you can give them credit for either. As for the internet, most of the people working on projects in the 1960's and 70's that would lead to its development were born in the 1920's and 30's. I do give them credit for the Vietnam protest movement that helped to end US involvement in the war.


Hm, my bad. You're right. I guess the only boomer presidents were GWB and Clinton. Both presidencies were a waste of time IMO. Had Clinton gone after Osama Bin Laden (he had reason enough to) than he could have prevented 9/11. Instead the media decided that skewering him over Lewinsky was more important. The housing crises and tech bubbles were completely the boomer's fault. However you look at it, either Clinton or Bush (or both) were responsible. Irresponsible investment behavior, divisive politics and blame games all lead us to the train-wreck we have today.

Clinton's presidency wasn't all bad. He restored diplomatic relations with Vietnam, which today is becoming a valuable trading partner. After his presidency he's done some great charity work and made a real difference in the world. I think if Al Gore had been listened to earlier the world would have been a much better place.

I won't even talk about Bush's presidency; we all agree it was bad.

[Hamburglar]

The next shoe to drop from the Clinton presidency is what happens with the BTC oil pipline he negotiated in 1999 that runs through Georgia-Will Obama put military bases in Georgia to protect our supply of oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey (Mediterranean-Warm water port)? Mind you that these are both former SSRepublics.

[Profit]

Hm, my bad. You're right. I guess the only boomer presidents were GWB and Clinton. Both presidencies were a waste of time IMO. Had Clinton gone after Osama Bin Laden (he had reason enough to) than he could have prevented 9/11. Instead the media decided that skewering him over Lewinsky was more important. The housing crises and tech bubbles were completely the boomer's fault. However you look at it, either Clinton or Bush (or both) were responsible. Irresponsible investment behavior, divisive politics and blame games all lead us to the train-wreck we have today.

Clinton's presidency wasn't all bad. He restored diplomatic relations with Vietnam, which today is becoming a valuable trading partner. After his presidency he's done some great charity work and made a real difference in the world. I think if Al Gore had been listened to earlier the world would have been a much better place.

I won't even talk about Bush's presidency; we all agree it was bad.

Good points, especially about the tech and housing bubbles. You could even go on to blame the culture wars on boomers. Either you were part of the peace/civil rights movement and the sexual/feminists revolutions or you were against them.

[RBM]

A suggested research project for anyone ...

What was the political ideology of those paranoids who have gone a step further and taken up arms against their target ?

I think an important distinction should be made between being paranoid and harming someone else because of it.

[WyeMe]

Ordinarily I would agree with this but look at some facts. The United States is the most powerful country in the history of the planet. Every four years there is a presidential election and who do we get for candidates? The clintons, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Bushes etc. All are members of CFR. In fact every president in recent memory has been a member with the exception of Harry Truman who was heavily advised by a cabinate loaded with CFR members. Does it not seem odd that in a country with a population of three hundred million that better candidates do not emerge? Could it be that the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are put in place by elite commitees so the deck is stacked before we vote? This theory explains a lot about what has happened and is happening as we speak.

Please explain why you & those like you haven't supported independent candidates? Without buying into your explanation of why & how it happens, I do agree that the elections are stacked by the political elite of both parties. You can't even become a candidate, regardless of qualifications, unless you spend a lifetime climbing the ladder. By the time you qualify for consideration, you're too firmly indoctrinated to do anything different. I think our political candidates are all "Manchurian Candidates" in a sense.

This is largely because we're all too selfish to suffer through what it would take to change. Most of the people who find themselves even loosely affiliated with one or the other party generally vote the party line out of laziness to become familiar enough with the world to be capable of differentiation. When things are going your way, as it is for the Dems among us right now, you're not incented enough to put forth any effort.





WyeMe added to this post, 5 minutes and 13 seconds later...

If I were a student in high school today I would probably already have a very jaded opinion of the world.

You're giving too much credit to high school kids. I have 2 students in high school today & I can testify that their thinking is far from what mine was at their age, except they're more tolerant than I was probably.

[Ray9]

Please explain why you & those like you haven't supported independent candidates?


I voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

[boldbidder]

Just for the record.

Whatever perceived (or actual) decline in public schools in America has absolutely ZERO to do with teachers and indoctrinating students, or bad teachers, or bad facilities. It is has everything to do with the virtual disintegration of parenting. My wife teaches 3rd grade and she spends a good 30-40% of her time in any given day teaching the kids how to be human beings (say thank you, be courtesy, share books, etc...). This isn't her being overreaching in her efforts, but the school's curriculum. It's needed because kids show up to school and literally have no idea how to behave and cannot follow even simple instructions. If you re-take that 30-40% of time wasted on soft skills and replace it with academics all perceived problems with US public schools would take care of themselves. But instead of looking in the mirror parents would rather bemoan about how poor teachers are, or how teachers are indoctrinating their children (HOW DARE OBAMA TELL OUR KIDS TO GET GOOD GRADES, THE HUMANITY!!!), or how if only all the kids had convertible quad-core notebooks loaded with Windows 27 they'd be able to learn.

Give me a fraking break.

[Ray9]

It is has everything to do with the virtual disintegration of parenting.

Reggie, I'm glad we agree on the damage done to America by "The Great Society". If one researches the percentages of intact families where the head of household was a male, ones sees a steep and pernicious decline after the "Great Society" that continues to this day. The single greatest contribution of the "Great Society" was the destruction of the traditional family consisting of a father, a mother and children. In other words, the "Great Society" created and propagated the single parent family headed by females. This is true accross the board for blacks, whites and hispanics but it especially damaged black america. Good parenting is everything. Without it our sons prefer the action of the street to fatherhood and our daughters become nothing more than baby factories to feed the expansion of government. The unfortunate offspring who inherit the legacy of the "Great Society" bear the burden of failed social engineering so it is little wonder that they behave like savages. As a boomer I apologize for this because even though I was still in high school It happened on my watch.

[Valiyn]

i fail to see how that has attributed to a decline of America. Rome and Greece got along just fine without our 'traditional' family values that were more or less inherited from the barbaric German tribes around the late Roman Empire. Much of humanity has either been poly, single parent, or one partner being a temporary parent in a short term marriage. (source: general histories of the Mediterrianian, Eastern, African, and Native American tribes mostly before 1000C.E.). It cannot, therefore, be incited as the sole reason of the 'decline' of our civilization.

[Ray9]

It cannot, therefore, be incited as the sole reason of the 'decline' of our civilization.


It's not the sole reason but it may be the most important one.

[Valiyn]

How so? What makes it so vital? Does the lack of a 'proper family' structure make it impossible for a normal human to operate decently? Dispite what the majority of the people believe, others can think for themselves regardless of what family structure they were brought into the world with. It's why in law we have an age limit where those who "can't think for themselves" have a guardian who is responsible or not tried as an adult - because we do realize people can think for themselves. In the psychological studies, environment does play a very big part in one of the major theories - infact, it is the key to the theory. In it, family only plays a minor part in the child's developing mind. Friends, early work, role models, play more of a factor then family structure. A child with a single parent might or might not make her mother her role model. "Hey, my mom is hard working, cares for me, and shows a work ethic second to none to provide for me" is a good role model dispite a lack of traditional structure. This is just from experience, growing up in an overly religious community - but the families that strive for the traditional family values thing are some of the worse parents I've ever seen. They are over protective and don't teach their kids to think for themselves who are often thrown without grounding into the real world apon leaving their home. Traditional family values is an abstract concept that plays no major part in the majority of humans to be considered as "may be the most important [cause of decline]".

[Lucid]

It's not the sole reason but it may be the most important one.

Actually, Valiyn's post pretty much made that a complete non-reason. It's not the denigration of the 'traditional family.'

In fact, I don't think there's really all that much wrong with society. I think you think there's something wrong with society because it no longer matches this ideal for it that you've got. However, it never met with that ideal. It never even came close. Instead of bemoaning the loss of your imaginary society, why don't you go try to find your place in the new one? You 'boomers' are soon to be the past. Adapt or die, it's not your world for much longer. :)


... thank god.

[hubcap]

Actually, Valiyn's post pretty much made that a complete non-reason. It's not the denigration of the 'traditional family.'

In fact, I don't think there's really all that much wrong with society. I think you think there's something wrong with society because it no longer matches this ideal for it that you've got. However, it never met with that ideal. It never even came close. Instead of bemoaning the loss of your imaginary society, why don't you go try to find your place in the new one? You 'boomers' are soon to be the past. Adapt or die, it's not your world for much longer. :)


... thank god.
The incidence of children born to unwed mothers at an all-time high.
The crime rate continues to increase
Less than 50% of high school students graduate in almost half of our 50 largest cities
The U.S. leads the world in illegal drug use

Shall I go on?

You don't think there's really all that much wrong with society?

It's not you generation X'ers world yet. :)

...thank god.

[boldbidder]

The crime rate continues to increase


Increase in comparison to when? You might want to check a very good book called Freakonomics. The author goes in to detail of how on the balance crime rates have actually been steadily falling.


The U.S. leads the world in illegal drug use


We could solve that overnight by legalizing them. See, drug use ain't illegal no more ;)

[hubcap]

We could solve that overnight by legalizing them. See, drug use ain't illegal no more ;)

Well, statistically it would certainly move us down the list...............however, I don't think it would improve society.

[Lucid]

The incidence of children born to unwed mothers at an all-time high.

Part of that is because sex education has been replaced by abstinence education. I didn't say it was perfect. Another reason is that marriage seems to be on the decline in favor of more modern relationships. Again, it's a paradigm shift not a problem.

The crime rate continues to increase

Really? Better double check your stats.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Less than 50% of high school students graduate in almost half of our 50 largest cities

And yet literacy is on the rise across the board.
Also, a GED is just as good as a high school diploma.

The U.S. leads the world in illegal drug use

Because we have more drugs that are illegal here. And we have a War On Drugs, so they get quite a bit more attention.

Shall I go on?

You don't think there's really all that much wrong with society?

No, I think things are improving across the board. Look to history and I think you'll see it's the case that the standard of living has been improving, the level of education rising and the amount of violent crime dropping. Generally, anyone who tries to make a case for the end of civilization and the fabric of society coming apart at the seams because a few women aren't getting married before popping one out and people are more and more likely to smoke a joint than beat up a queer should familiarize themselves more with history. By and large you're bemoaning changes in things you, subjectively, value. The things that can be objectively said to be bad for society (like high crime rates) are actually on the decline.

It's not you generation X'ers world yet. :)

...thank god.

But by your reasoning, could it be much worse if it were? I really didn't mean to offend you boomers or hurt your feelings by making a joke at your expense.
However, your last statement seems to be contradictory to the rest of your (full of holes) argument.

[hubcap]

Part of that is because sex education has been replaced by abstinence education.
Your opinion. I think sex education is much more prevalent today than it was 30 years ago.

I didn't say it was perfect. Another reason is that marriage seems to be on the decline in favor of more modern relationships. Again, it's a paradigm shift not a problem.
You must not know many single mothers trying to raise kids without the help of the father. I can assure you that it is a problem for single mothers.............not just a paradigm shift.

And yet literacy is on the rise across the board.
Also, a GED is just as good as a high school diploma.
Good, let's just discontinue public high schools. It will save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Because we have more drugs that are illegal here. And we have a War On Drugs, so they get quite a bit more attention.
Is that supposed to be an excuse? Or a reason?

But by your reasoning, could it be much worse if it were? I really didn't mean to offend you boomers or hurt your feelings by making a joke at your expense.

I can assure you that you didn't hurt my feelings. The fact that young folks think they know all the answers simply serves to point out that nothing changes. My generation thought we knew all the answers too. Hell, we didn't even understand the questions. I suspect that many in your generation are no different, they don't understand the questions, yet they think they know all the answers.

By and large you're bemoaning changes in things you, subjectively, value.
I haven't been bemoaning the change of society as per your accusation. I was simply attempting to point out that society isn't all peachy as you seem to think it is. I can assure you that in many ways society was better 30 years ago, and in many ways it is better today.

[Lucid]

I haven't been bemoaning the change of society as per your accusation. I was simply attempting to point out that society isn't all peachy as you seem to think it is. I can assure you that in many ways society was better 30 years ago, and in many ways it is better today.

Then this will spare me responding to the rest of your post (incidentally, I know lots of single mothers. It's not easy for them, but it's not the downfall of civilization either and they all chose to be single mothers. They knew they had other options).

I don't think society is all peachy and perfect. I think we have lots of problems. However, I think it's basically wrong to talk about how bad it is compared to some arbitrary time in the past. At worse it's simply no worse than it was. I think in many ways it's better.

If I didn't hurt your feelings then what's the reason for all the "You arrogant young people thinking you know everything" etc. when I never said anything of the kind. And why on earth would you jump (actually, leap) to the conclusion that I think everything is perfect?

(And I never said high school should be abolished - isn't that usually your argument? That public services shouldn't be provided for by the government? - just that 50% of kids who enroll Freshman year coming out with a GED isn't the end of the world. You're arguing against things that no one is saying.)

[hubcap]

I don't think society is all peachy and perfect. I think we have lots of problems. However, I think it's basically wrong to talk about how bad it is compared to some arbitrary time in the past. At worse it's simply no worse than it was. I think in many ways it's better.
I agreed with you on this. However, there is still plenty of things "wrong" with society..........and I bet you and I would agree on a bunch of them.

If I didn't hurt your feelings then what's the reason for all the "You arrogant young people thinking you know everything" etc. when I never said anything of the kind. And why on earth would you jump (actually, leap) to the conclusion that I think everything is perfect?
I didn't use the word arrogant, nor did I leap to the conclusion that you think everything is perfect. You said "In fact, I don't think there's really all that much wrong with society". I was simply attempting to point out the fact that there is plenty wrong with society. I wasn't attempting to start a debate.

(And I never said high school should be abolished - isn't that usually your argument?
I have never argued that school should be abolished. I have advocated getting the federal government out of things that I believe should be funded and controlled by state and local governments.

That public services shouldn't be provided for by the government? - just that 50% of kids who enroll Freshman year coming out with a GED isn't the end of the world. You're arguing against things that no one is saying.)
You pointed out that in spite of the fact that 50% of kids weren't graduating literacy was going up. You didn't actually cite a source or point out if literacy was going up in the country overall or in the 50% that weren't graduating.

I was simply pointing out that if you are satisfied that a GED is ok let's just eliminate high schools altogether and save the taxpayers money. Let all the kids get GED's.

I think that you and I are actually much more in agreement than you think. You seem to be assuming some things about my views on the basis of my position on other issues.

I agree that in many ways society is better off than it was 30 years ago.

I also believe that in many ways society is worse off than it was 30 years ago.

I can assure you that the challenges your generation faces are going to be huge. You are going to deal with a declining $, the national debt, more inflation than you've seen in the last 30 years, terrorism on a grander scale........on and on. If the folks I know from your generation are an indication, I think you'll do OK.

[IrishGuy]

The boomer generation is probably the last vestige of free thinking Americans. The reason for this is probably because boomers were schooled in systems that predated the modern, global assault on American culture, traditions and most of all the constitution that created the United States. We were the "hippies" who experimented with free love and communal living and then got a haircut and a real job. The reason most of us came to our senses is because our education consisted mainly of learning to read, write and count so we could function in a world we could understand by our own perceptions, free from institutionalized indoctrination. Institutionalized indoctrination includes things like not allowing the Boy Scouts on school property because they won’t accept homosexuals or barring Christmas trees and Christmas greetings because they violate the separation of church and state or may offend groups that don’t recognize traditional holidays.

Boomers are aging now and many will be gone before the new world order that is now underway metastasizes to consume all remnants of individual liberty and freedom of thought. All of the major industries are abandoning their homeland to hang their shingle on foreign shores in a calculated effort to calibrate the American standard of living downward to level the global playing field. The post-boomer generation has been carefully prepared through relentless indoctrination to embrace the philosophy of groupism and self-hatred. Spanish signage in Walmart is the dark humor of the times as it heralds the onslaught of borderless and lawless societies and the death of sovereign nations. The boomers may be the last objective observers to witness the final destruction of the American Constitution as their descendants spinelessly acquiesce to the global socialism of The New World Order.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And the march of time continues as it has for generations....I think you're putting the boomers on quite the pedestal. Much of our political polarization is due to the actions of the boomers. I think you fail to realize that most of the oldest members of generation Y are in college or have just gotten out of college. Generation X is a little older; they're having kids, but many of them have not even reached their mid-life crisis yet. My point is that Generations X and Y are still too young to have attained any of the power necessary to oversee the problems you are talking about. Politics is dominated by the boomers. Boomers put up signage in Wal-Mart and boomers are the ones who have developed globalism into it's current state. Major industries are abandoning their homeland? Who oversaw that?

I think globalism is a net positive, I just wanted to point out that most of your criticisms against Generations X and Y are actually products of your own generation.

When I started this thread I did not mean to infer that only boomers can think freely. The point I was trying to get across is that the field of education has become so politicized that students are exposed to propaganda that was not part of the deal when we were in school. If I were a student in high school today I would probably already have a very jaded opinion of the world.
Propaganda? I didn't grow up in the Cold War sonny. The fall of the Soviet Union has resulted in a generation that has been freed from the "us vs them" mentality of the Cold War. There's always going to be propaganda but, my generation has grown up in an increasingly multi-polar world where the threat of nuclear holocaust is no longer a daily reality. If anything, most people in my generation view the world as full of opportunities. There is a lot more optimism than pessimism. Some of this might be naive optimism, but it is certainly not the pessimism that you speak of.

I don't have to look very far to find boogeymen when it comes to this current administration. Today, in an address to the UN, Muammar Al-Gadafi, the Libyan leader of the country responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing and the deaths of all aboard Pan Am Flight 103, called Obama his "son" and the "son" of his countrymen. He also stated that He hoped Obama would remain President of the United states forever. This ringing endorsement of Obama by a terrorist killer speaks volumes about the present White House and our unfortunate leader. Obama's associations with terrorists past and present--Bill Ayers--Gadafi and his leadership position in in radical organizations like Acorn, are startling evidence that the White House is occupied by the left-lunatic fringe.
Al-Gadafi is just trying to get attention. Frankly, he just made himself look like a buffoon. Endorsements of Obama by African Nations are popular due to his ethnic background. From my knowledge many people in Africa still view the United States as a racist country (some truth to this). Many of them never thought it possible that a man of color could ever achieve the Presidency. The actualization of something that many people in Africa viewed as an impossibility is a big deal; even for terrorists such as Al-Gadafi. It creates the idea that "hey maybe the US isn't such a bad country after all; maybe we can work together." It turns heads and generates interest; that can be a big bonus for the US.

The Left will appear as the lunatic fringe to someone on the lunatic right.

Obama's speech was even more disturbing. He made several statements that appear to reaveal his abandonment of the state of Israel which is the perfect recipe for the start of World War Three. The pompous arrogance and almost child-like naivete of this unfortunate leader of the world's most powerful country is profoundly unsettling.
Frankly, writing a blank check for Israel has led to overconfidence and abuses of power. If anything, reigning in Israel will only reduce the likelihood of WWIII.

Arrogance would be Bush thinking that he can walk right into Iraq say "Democracy" and have it happen. Arrogance would be thinking that our country can settle all our problems unilaterally. Frankly, there are other countries in this world and we have to work with them even if we don't always like them (especially the big ones).

[thod]

All cultures are collectivist. A set of shared values and practices. The US has become too individualistic. Every malcontent shouts "don't oppress me, I demand my rights". Yet with each one doing their own thing and pulling in different directions there is no society. They even go so far as to revise history and describe the US as always having been about individuals. It was founded on communities not individualism. This is the problem with libertarianism. There are no cohesive forces and it will succumb to external civillisations, those nations that do pull together.

The US is simply too big. It needs to break up to allow people to live the way they wish by moving location. Lets have Bible belt land, where people must be Christian and live by those values or leave. We can give Montana to the libertarians. We can have the peoples republic of California. Shared vision is strength, everyone fighting their corner is weakness. The society of individuals is not only weak to true civilisations, it is easy to penetrate. Just look at how easily overseas groups are able to establish themselves and prosper in the US.

[IrishGuy]

All cultures are collectivist. A set of shared values and practices. The US has become too individualistic. Every malcontent shouts "don't oppress me, I demand my rights". Yet with each one doing their own thing and pulling in different directions there is no society. They even go so far as to revise history and describe the US as always having been about individuals. It was founded on communities not individualism. This is the problem with libertarianism. There are no cohesive forces and it will succumb to external civillisations, those nations that do pull together.

The US is simply too big. It needs to break up to allow people to live the way they wish by moving location. Lets have Bible belt land, where people must be Christian and live by those values or leave. We can give Montana to the libertarians. We can have the peoples republic of California. Shared vision is strength, everyone fighting their corner is weakness. The society of individuals is not only weak to true civilisations, it is easy to penetrate. Just look at how easily overseas groups are able to establish themselves and prosper in the US.

China is 4-5x the size of the United States by population. It seems to hold together well enough. I think that increasing workplace mobility could help to eliminate the "I need my religion/culture represented at work" attitude.

Also, more homogenized countries are more prone to moral and social collapse in a sense, since corruption will send the whole society will go down the crapper instead of a mere segment.

[boldbidder]

China is 4-5x the size of the United States by population. It seems to hold together well enough.


That's because in general eastern philosophy/culture emphasizes the we over the me. As stark contrast to the American modus operandi, "I'm special just the way I am and fuck everyone else"

[hubcap]

That's because in general eastern philosophy/culture emphasizes the we over the me. As stark contrast to the American modus operandi, "I'm special just the way I am and fuck everyone else"

Sounds cool, but its completely wrong.

The reason China seems to hold together is that the folks in charge of running the country have guns and the folks who oppose them don't.

China holds together only because those in charge are more than willing to kill those who oppose them.

[Hamburglar]

Excuse me?

China is approaching it's four thousandth year of recorded history-I think that deserves more of an explanation than your simplistic view would permit. You should consider the fact that your statement holds true for most any government, including your own. I'm not discounting the fact that China has a much looser definition for the application of power, but that doesn't change the fact that the US does this as well (We did fight a vicious and bloody civil war 170 yrs ago). What boldbidder said about the collective nature of the Chinese is correct, and it likely has a LOT to do with the fact that China is not running military campaigns across the entire country every day to, 'keep it together'...Do they have ethnic division? Sure, but so do we. We both keep these under wraps by use of police force.

[boldbidder]

Sounds cool, but its completely wrong.

The reason China seems to hold together is that the folks in charge of running the country have guns and the folks who oppose them don't.

China holds together only because those in charge are more than willing to kill those who oppose them.

Hub, I think you misunderstand. In many other countries, the government isn't seen as the the adversary that it is in the US. For example, the overwhelming majority of Chinese people look VERY favorably on the manner in which the Chinese government provided aid and resources to the people of Sichaun province in the aftermath of last year's earthquake. Further, more along the lines of my original point about the we vs me culturally. In China there is an infinitely greater sense of community than in the US, people unite to solve local issues in their community (not just march about wars, healthcare, tea parties, etc....). Even at the granular level of the family you see the pooling of resources and sharing the burdens. Very common for grandparents, parents, & kids to all live under the same roof (not out of financial necessity either).

That's the sort of thing I mean when I refer to the we vs me.

[Stickman]

China is approaching it's four thousandth year of recorded history

Yeah, China is the longest continuous running civilization in the world. I don't think you can attribute their success to simply having more guns.

But at the same time I don't think you can use them as a model for 'success'.

[Ray9]

Even at the granular level of the family you see the pooling of resources and sharing the burdens. Very common for grandparents, parents, & kids to all live under the same roof (not out of financial necessity either).


Precisely the things that were destroyed by "The Great Society" in the United States. The Chinese do these things because it's a natural part of the human personality to do these things, not because of anything the government does. Today in America many children not only don't know who their grandparents are but they don't have a clue who their father is. It must be stated again that government love is no replacement for the love of mankind and the bad parenting that has emerged as a result of too much social engineering is the source of much of societies ills.

[PunkinA]

I also believe that in many ways society is worse off than it was 30 years ago.

I can assure you that the challenges your generation faces are going to be huge. You are going to deal with a declining $, the national debt, more inflation than you've seen in the last 30 years, terrorism on a grander scale........on and on. If the folks I know from your generation are an indication, I think you'll do OK.

I don't get it hubcap, I hear you deriding Generation X. You seem glad that the boomers haven't yet given way to the next generation. Then you go on to talk all gloom and doom about the government and economy you are handing off. Is this bragging?

I hear, "Hey we trashed this place and you guys are going to have a hell of time cleaning this shit up. Oh, by the way, the baby boomer generation has also straddled your generation with paying for our retirement and elderly health care. It's gonna be a hell of a time watching you guys try to figure it out. Oh, and one last thing, we are going to have a persistent voting majority for years to come, so don't try taking away any of our swag."

After listening to you brag about how much you fucked it all up when you had the chance, are we supposed to listen to you?

[yoginimama]

Precisely the things that were destroyed by "The Great Society" in the United States. The Chinese do these things because it's a natural part of the human personality to do these things, not because of anything the government does. Today in America many children not only don't know who their grandparents are but they don't have a clue who their father is. It must be stated again that government love is no replacement for the love of mankind and the bad parenting that has emerged as a result of too much social engineering is the source of much of societies ills.

If "The Great Society" really destroyed the family structure in the US, then why on earth didn't hardcore collectivist Maoism destroy it even worse in China??

I mean, jeez, the Chinese state got in there and forced women to turn in their used sanitary pads to prove they weren't pregnant, forced them to get abortions if they were pregnant and already had one child, regulated where people could live, inculcated blind and worshipful obedience to the State, formally and publicly humiliated anyone suspected of having "counter-revolutionary" leanings, sent such people down to reeducation camps, put kids in the Young Pioneers and manipulated them to hold the state above their own families...*way* beyond anything done in the United States.

So if all that didn't destroy the Chinese cultural tendency to band together multigenerationally, how did some food stamps "destroy" the American family?

[hubcap]

I don't get it hubcap, I hear you deriding Generation X. You seem glad that the boomers haven't yet given way to the next generation. Then you go on to talk all gloom and doom about the government and economy you are handing off. Is this bragging?

I hear, "Hey we trashed this place and you guys are going to have a hell of time cleaning this shit up. Oh, by the way, the baby boomer generation has also straddled your generation with paying for our retirement and elderly health care. It's gonna be a hell of a time watching you guys try to figure it out. Oh, and one last thing, we are going to have a persistent voting majority for years to come, so don't try taking away any of our swag."

After listening to you brag about how much you fucked it all up when you had the chance, are we supposed to listen to you?
WTF?

There were a lot of folks who have contributed to the country being where it is today. I'm not really a boomer or an x'er I'm a tweener.

In my view a lot of the problems the country faces today began back during FDR's presidency. Huge government expansion, transfer payments began getting a lot of traction, LBJ finished the job with his "Great Society" program.

As far as your generation taking over the country goes, you will all be 20 years older before you can actually begin getting the reins, so you'll have a chance to get some seasoning by then. It's not gonna be a picnic, but as I attempted to point out earlier the folks I know from your generation are smart enough to deal with it.................after they get some experience.

One thing that I see that concerns me about the future of the country is how todays generation always looks to the government to fix the problems, when in the past Americans had more of an independent attitude and took care of their own problems. As far as I'm concerned, if government is the answer to the question, it was a stupid question.

[IrishGuy]

If "The Great Society" really destroyed the family structure in the US, then why on earth didn't hardcore collectivist Maoism destroy it even worse in China??

I mean, jeez, the Chinese state got in there and forced women to turn in their used sanitary pads to prove they weren't pregnant, forced them to get abortions if they were pregnant and already had one child, regulated where people could live, inculcated blind and worshipful obedience to the State, formally and publicly humiliated anyone suspected of having "counter-revolutionary" leanings, sent such people down to reeducation camps, put kids in the Young Pioneers and manipulated them to hold the state above their own families...*way* beyond anything done in the United States.

So if all that didn't destroy the Chinese cultural tendency to band together multigenerationally, how did some food stamps "destroy" the American family?

Maoist China is kind of what I meant when I said homogenized societies tend to go down the crapper. They don't have to stay there, but they do hit the ground pretty hard. Our diverse society is creating some problems with getting enough people on the bandwagon to get things done, but moving towards Chinese style communities can have some set backs as well.

[Profit]

Yeah, China is the longest continuous running civilization in the world. I don't think you can attribute their success to simply having more guns.

But at the same time I don't think you can use them as a model for 'success'.

I agree. The Chinese gov't, both (way) past and present, is not exactly without its negative aspects. On the one hand you have to admire their ability in the last two decades to implement sustained economic development that has and continues to lift millions of Chinese out of poverty. But on the other hand this has come at a price, namely political liberties and the use of force in certain circumstances.

The emphasis on the collective well being of society over the individual in Chinese culture is showing some cracks however and I think in a lot of ways they are similar to the breakdown in family values in the US. For those Chinese who grew up in urban developing areas of China over the last two decades the idea of having their parents living with them and depending on their support in old age is become very unappealing. Economic development in China may be creating a more individualistic society by giving individuals the ability to pursue their own wants and desires.

[yoginimama]

The emphasis on the collective well being of society over the individual in Chinese culture is showing some cracks however and I think in a lot of ways they are similar to the breakdown in family values in the US. For those Chinese who grew up in urban developing areas of China over the last two decades the idea of having their parents living with them and depending on their support in old age is become very unappealing. Economic development in China may be creating a more individualistic society by giving individuals the ability to pursue their own wants and desires.

What 4000 years of culture and 40-50 years of Maoism failed to do (destroy intergenerational family bonds), 10-20 years of CAPITALISM has done.

If--and it's a big if--there really is "disintegration of the family" going on, either in China or the US, it's *capitalism* that has done it ("creating a more individualistic society by giving individuals the ability to pursue their own wants and desires") rather than socialism or communism. Caring for your family becomes one choice out of many. You could live with grandma...or you could become an arbitrage lawyer and drive a Ferrari. No surprise a lot of people prefer the latter.

I doubt all of this is really "destroying the family." Rearranging it (in China), definitely. But again--the culprit, to the extent there is one, is capitalism.

[Undead Bonzi]

I'm going to separate and play with the order of your statements and emphasize some points to help you see some interesting things.

There were a lot of folks who have contributed to the country being where it is today.

In my view a lot of the problems the country faces today began back during FDR's presidency. Huge government expansion, transfer payments began getting a lot of traction, LBJ finished the job with his "Great Society" program.

So is it 'a lot of folks' or just two? First you say everyone is to blame then you single out two and say 'it is mostly their fault'.

Avoidance of responsibility by inclusive 'we' then targeted blame of 'them'. In other words 'we all fucked up....but it was mostly someone else's fault'.

One thing that I see that concerns me about the future of the country is how todays generation always looks to the government to fix the problems, when in the past Americans had more of an independent attitude and took care of their own problems. As far as I'm concerned, if government is the answer to the question, it was a stupid question.

In my view a lot of the problems the country faces today began back during FDR's presidency. Huge government expansion, transfer payments began getting a lot of traction, LBJ finished the job with his "Great Society" program.

Looks like yesterdays generation and the generation before that and the generation before that all looked to the government to fix problems. Given that X and Y have almost no political pull and that all the really big government programs that are tanking were made by 'the greatest generation' we can maybe stop trying to say that this trait is solely an aspect of todays generation yes?

Your own example also nicely dispels the myth of how 'independent' older generations were and are. I need to look no farther than the Social Security deductions from my pay stub to see the fallacy of that much beloved delusion.

[Evangelist]

I have always been a bit skeptical of government and I have always asked difficult questions. When Obama was elected President, I did not go out and buy the T-Shirt like so many of my African American family members did. I pondered how a black man can be voted into that office so quickly. I am from Illinois. Barack Obama wasn't a Senator long before he was a president. As a matter of fact, we just took the senatorial signs off the lawn when he put up his presidential. It made me wonder about his connections and what is supposed to be gained by this. I am from Illinois, and when your last two governors have jailtime, you question the politics. Saying this, I am not sure what role Baby boomers have in the political juggling, but the war wasn't lost with them. It began long ago. We have to remember that this country began in rebellion and established that the most influential people in the country can run and change the country. That was long ago. We have always catered to the wealthy and the affluent. When my generation can put the boomers in a nursing home, we then can run the country. It is survival of the fittest until you are not fit.

[demvesalius]

The boomer generation is probably the last vestige of free thinking Americans. The reason for this is probably because boomers were schooled in systems that predated the modern, global assault on American culture, traditions and most of all the constitution that created the United States. We were the "hippies" who experimented with free love and communal living and then got a haircut and a real job. The reason most of us came to our senses is because our education consisted mainly of learning to read, write and count so we could function in a world we could understand by our own perceptions, free from institutionalized indoctrination. Institutionalized indoctrination includes things like not allowing the Boy Scouts on school property because they won’t accept homosexuals or barring Christmas trees and Christmas greetings because they violate the separation of church and state or may offend groups that don’t recognize traditional holidays.

Boomers are aging now and many will be gone before the new world order that is now underway metastasizes to consume all remnants of individual liberty and freedom of thought. All of the major industries are abandoning their homeland to hang their shingle on foreign shores in a calculated effort to calibrate the American standard of living downward to level the global playing field. The post-boomer generation has been carefully prepared through relentless indoctrination to embrace the philosophy of groupism and self-hatred. Spanish signage in Walmart is the dark humor of the times as it heralds the onslaught of borderless and lawless societies and the death of sovereign nations. The boomers may be the last objective observers to witness the final destruction of the American Constitution as their descendants spinelessly acquiesce to the global socialism of The New World Order.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Absolute bullshit! It's your generation who currently holds political power and has selfishly left future generations with a projected 56 trillion dollars in national debt and currently almost 12 trillion dollars of national debt. Your generation cares more about the here and now then you do about a better tomorrow for America. The numbers speak for themselves my friend. Isn't it ironic that the Greatest Generation gave birth to the generation that is destroying America. The next "Great American Generation" will be the generation who gets down on their hands and knees and becomes fiscally responsible; because, as history shows time and time again, great civilizations don't last long when they don't have any money. I hope a disease hits America and kills all the old baby boomers so my generation will still have a little social security.

[hubcap]

I'm going to separate and play with the order of your statements and emphasize some points to help you see some interesting things.

So is it 'a lot of folks' or just two? First you say everyone is to blame then you single out two and say 'it is mostly their fault'.
You have done a very nice job of misrepresenting my position. In the first place this quote: "There were a lot of folks who have contributed to the country being where it is today." was not suggesting all negatives. There have been many many people who have served this country and contributed very positively to the state the country is currently finds itself in. Without the service of the boomers you would probably be calling your neighbor "comrade" now.

The New Deal and The Great Society were not just the result of FDR and LBJ.

Avoidance of responsibility by inclusive 'we' then targeted blame of 'them'. In other words 'we all fucked up....but it was mostly someone else's fault'.
I take full responsibility for my contributions the country. I have voted in every election since I became eligible. I have written to my elected representatives, I have spoken with them personally, and I have been a law-abiding citizen and taxpayer.

Looks like yesterdays generation and the generation before that and the generation before that all looked to the government to fix problems. Given that X and Y have almost no political pull and that all the really big government programs that are tanking were made by 'the greatest generation' we can maybe stop trying to say that this trait is solely an aspect of todays generation yes?
You're painting with an awfully broad brush there friend. Where I grew up we didn't rely on the government for transfer payments. I think you will find that a much higher incidence of that type of government assistance goes to the urban population.

The current generation seems to me much more interested in receiving a check from the government for something than my generation does.

Your own example also nicely dispels the myth of how 'independent' older generations were and are. I need to look no farther than the Social Security deductions from my pay stub to see the fallacy of that much beloved delusion.
I detect a lot of anger in the tone of your words. I can assure you that my opinion of social security is not favorable.

[Undead Bonzi]

Without the service of the boomers you would probably be calling your neighbor "comrade" now.

And without the brainwashing of McCarthyism such knee jerk fear mongering statements would have no impact.


You're painting with an awfully broad brush there friend. Where I grew up we didn't rely on the government for transfer payments. I think you will find that a much higher incidence of that type of government assistance goes to the urban population.

The current generation seems to me much more interested in receiving a check from the government for something than my generation does.

You're missing my main point. Anyone who understands political demographics can tell you who has the voting power right now and it is not gen X or Y. These government assistance programs you are assigning to X and Y were not created by these younger generations you are maligning, they were created by the so called 'independent' older generations. I see Boomers bemoaning what the government is doing now, but if you look at the demographics it is the Boomers putting these politicians in office and it is Boomers that these politicians pay heed to. Voter turnout among the younger generations is almost nil because they understand that their vote won't count until the Boomers die.

Until such a time as X and Y become the predominant voting blocks your opinions on their tendencies are just supposition backed up by no fact. Remember that EVERY government program in effect that you dislike was made by Boomers or generations before, so every time you complain about it...it is not X and Y that your finger should be pointing at.

I think you will find that a much higher incidence of that type of government assistance goes to the urban population.

And in your mind you can think of no statistical reason why a larger and more dense concentration of population might have higher incidences of EVEYTHING? It surely must just be because lazy liberals live in the city...probably so they can be closer to the mail distribution centers so they can get their government checks quicker.

[hubcap]

And without the brainwashing of McCarthyism such knee jerk fear mongering statements would have no impact.
Brainwashing of McCarthyism? You don't think that the communist Soviet Union was a threat? You ever hear of the "Cuban Missle Crisis" ? How about Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Angola..............you ever hear of the Cold War? That wasn't brainwashing for those of us who lived through it. It was the real deal, I can assure you.

Until such a time as X and Y become the predominant voting blocks your opinions on their tendencies are just supposition backed up by no fact. Remember that EVERY government program in effect that you dislike was made by Boomers or generations before, so every time you complain about it...it is not X and Y that your finger should be pointing at.
You are correct. There were plenty of people in my generation who were against those programs when they were implemented, unfortunately some people in every generation are susceptible to being mislead by politicians.

And in your mind you can think of no statistical reason why a larger and more dense concentration of population might have higher incidences of EVEYTHING? It surely must just be because lazy liberals live in the city...probably so they can be closer to the mail distribution centers so they can get their government checks quicker.
Per capita.

[Undead Bonzi]

You are correct. There were plenty of people in my generation who were against those programs when they were implemented, unfortunately some people in every generation are susceptible to being mislead by politicians.

Ahahaha. I knew I would get you to say it sooner or later. Now that you've said it can we acknowledge that this is not a generational issue but a people issue? That it is not a single generation that turns to the governement but a common human response to try to pass the buck? Can we leave behind all the hubris of The Boomers and The Greatest Generation and be honest with ourselves that the differences between all generations are largely illusory and based in ignorance and pride?

Brainwashing of McCarthyism? You don't think that the communist Soviet Union was a threat? You ever hear of the "Cuban Missle Crisis" ? How about Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Angola..............you ever hear of the Cold War? That wasn't brainwashing for those of us who lived through it. It was the real deal, I can assure you

You really made my day when you put both of these responses in one post, I thought I was going to have to draw it out to make you pull out the Cold War. I get a giggle everytime I prove to an older generation moaner that the things they are bitching about are not the products of the generation they are moaning about. Then regualar as the sun rise comes the rebuttal...but what about the Cold War!?

What about it? It does nothing to disprove my point about government voting demographics or responsibility for current governmental woes does it? You seem to imply that it was the generation that shapped the course of events. I believe that it was the events that shapped the course of a generation.

[hubcap]

What do you think the world would look like if the boomers had just rolled over and let the Soviet Union had its way with the world?

To be perfectly honest I think you're jousting with windmills. I'm not sure you even have a clue what I think. You seem to already have some sort of scripted theme that you're following.

Glad I could make your day tho.

[Hamburglar]

I'm pretty sure that the greatest generation still gets to claim the 'victory' against communism. Sorry hubcap. Ironically, your generation forsake the lesson that we all thought you had learned hard in Vietnam

[Stickman]

What do you think the world would look like if the boomers had just rolled over and let the Soviet Union had its way with the world?

The Soviet Union brought itself down with no violence and little drama. A socialist planned economy was ultimately unsustainable. The communist states that remain with the exception of N. Korea and Cuba are some of America's best trading partners (Vietnam and China). These countries ultimately became our allies because of diplomacy by Clinton and Nixon respectively, not paranoid posturing and military adventures.

The Cold War was a long series of foreign policy disasters from Vietnam, to Latin America. There were some bright spots like Japan and Europe but you can't deny that a lot of people suffered because of CIA backed dictators.

[hubcap]

The Soviet Union brought itself down with no violence and little drama.
This is patently untrue. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War. Reagan gets a lot of the credit for that. Carter's policies emboldened the Soviets.

The Cold War was a long series of foreign policy disasters from Vietnam, to Latin America. There were some bright spots like Japan and Europe but you can't deny that a lot of people suffered because of CIA backed dictators.
The Cold War was too long (45 years) and far too complex to describe in two sentences. A total of 9 administrations from our government were involved in waging the Cold War. There were some fantastic victories and some ridiculous defeats................many of which were never in the headlines or taught in the history books.





hubcap added to this post, 9 minutes and 44 seconds later...

I'm pretty sure that the greatest generation still gets to claim the 'victory' against communism. Sorry hubcap. Ironically, your generation forsake the lesson that we all thought you had learned hard in Vietnam
I would like to once again remind everone that I am not a baby boomer. I was born between the baby boomers and the Gen Xers. I think there were a lot of lessons learned in Viet Nam that weren't forgotten. We remember those lessons quite well.

[Stickman]

This is patently untrue. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War. Reagan gets a lot of the credit for that. Carter's policies emboldened the Soviets.

Well we can debate about it but I think we'd be derailing. Want to start another thread?

If you buy that it was because Reagan said "Bring this wall down" than it shows that the USSR was so unstable that literally an offhand comment could bring it down.

If you buy that it was because of the arms race, well that doesn't explain how at the time the USSR was scaling back on defense spending since the early 80s.

That's the general gist of the argument I'd put forward. Scholars who study the soviet economy don't think that Reagan brought it down and neither do I. It was more likely due to Gorbechev's economic reforms that led to the collapse of the command economy.

The Cold War was too long (45 years) and far too complex to describe in two sentences. A total of 9 administrations from our government were involved in waging the Cold War. There were some fantastic victories and some ridiculous defeats................many of which were never in the headlines or taught in the history books.

Well, I really didn't mean to brush off 45 years of history so quickly but it is my opinion that a lot of suffering could have been avoided had the United States stayed out of Latin America, the middle east and South-east asia during this time. The only justified proxy war during this time might have been the Korean one but that's also the one that I least understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

[Night Runner]

This is patently untrue. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War. Reagan gets a lot of the credit for that. Carter's policies emboldened the Soviets.
Oh really?.. I was born in the USSR. It rotted from within, due to the overwhelming corruption and the black market becoming bigger and stronger than the "official" economy. You could have a test-crash dummy in the Oval Office during the 80s - the outcome would still be the same. If anything, the one individual that contributed the most to the end of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev.

I think there were a lot of lessons learned in Viet Nam that weren't forgotten. We remember those lessons quite well.
Indeed. Why, I still remember how well the invasion of Iraq (planned and master-minded by Baby Boomers) turned out. Who could forget all those Iraqis throwing bouquets of flowers at our troops? And then we withdrew in just a few months, just like we originally planned. And as we all know, now Iraq is the shining example of democracy in that region, completely devoid of crime, violence and religious intolerance.

:rolleyes: x 1,000

[hubcap]

Oh really?.. I was born in the USSR. It rotted from within, due to the overwhelming corruption and the black market becoming bigger and stronger than the "official" economy. You could have a test-crash dummy in the Oval Office during the 80s - the outcome would still be the same. If anything, the one individual that contributed the most to the end of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev.
It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?


Indeed. Why, I still remember how well the invasion of Iraq (planned and master-minded by Baby Boomers) turned out. Who could forget all those Iraqis throwing bouquets of flowers at our troops? And then we withdrew in just a few months, just like we originally planned. And as we all know, now Iraq is the shining example of democracy in that region, completely devoid of crime, violence and religious intolerance.

:rolleyes: x 1,000
You and I are obviously talking about entirely different lessons. Your prejudices seem to limit the scope of possibilities you are considering.

[Night Runner]

It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?
Are you denying that the Soviet Union was incredibly corrupt and about to collapse on its own?


You and I are obviously talking about entirely different lessons. Your prejudices seem to limit the scope of possibilities you are considering.
Are you denying that Baby Boomers were behind the invasion of Iraq? What lessons do you have in mind?

[yoginimama]

It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?



You and I are obviously talking about entirely different lessons. Your prejudices seem to limit the scope of possibilities you are considering.

Point One: No. It's not a matter of perspective at all. It's a matter of historical record and evidence. The Soviet economy was at a complete standstill by the early 1970s. The proxy war fought with them by the US in Afghanistan in the late 1970s-early 1980s (so eager were we to "give them a Vietnam" that we created the militant Islamist movement which has now come back to bite us so handsomely on the ass) did indeed hurt them. But it only speeded up the inevitable.

Furthermore, although the Soviet Union was definitely a superpower and interested in ideological influence, the danger from it in terms of "taking over" was gone once Western Europe got the Marshall Plan and its own relationship with communist China soured in the 1950s. Had either of those two factors not occurred, there could have been serious danger of the developed world going communist. But both factors occurred, dooming any further expansionism on the part of the USSR. The moment passed quickly, and from then on, the USSR was only a symbolic rather than actual danger abroad.

The United States, by contrast, garrisons the world as we speak.

Point 2: What prejudices do you detect in Night Runner's argument?? Just the fact that Night Runner disagrees with you? Your points/arguments tend to be far more ideological than anything Night Runner has said.

[hubcap]

Are you denying that the Soviet Union was incredibly corrupt and about to collapse on its own?
I'm not denying that it was incredibly corrupt. In fact I wouldn't deny that the United States is incredibly corrupt currently. Whether it would have eventually collapsed on its own or not is I suppose, a matter of speculation.



Are you denying that Baby Boomers were behind the invasion of Iraq? What lessons do you have in mind?
I think it is myopic to insist that an entire generation of people were responsible for the invasion of Iraq. The GWB administration was behind the war in Iraq.

As far as lessons learned there were many. Here are just a few:

1. Don't blame the troops if you don't like the policy
2. Let the generals conduct the war to win
3. If you're going to fight, fight to win

[Stickman]

I'm not denying that it was incredibly corrupt. In fact I wouldn't deny that the United States is incredibly corrupt currently. Whether it would have eventually collapsed on its own or not is I suppose, a matter of speculation.

When studying history and trying to prove or disprove causative statements like "did Reagan bring down the soviet union?" there will always lead to some level of speculation. This is mostly because you have to imagine what would've happened had Reagan not existed. Contra-positives are pretty difficult to construct and the tools regularly used by the scientific method aren't really practical in history (most of the time) but the case put forward against Reagan is pretty strong IMO.

I'm sorry, his influence on the USSR just isn't as strong as conservatives wish it to be.

I think it is myopic to insist that an entire generation of people were responsible for the invasion of Iraq. The GWB administration was behind the war in Iraq.

GWB and Dick Cheney were both born somewhere between 1945 and 1955. Most
(if not all) of his administration was either born either immediately after, during or slightly before WWII. His administration and the war was also very popular among older people and unpopular with younger people.

Of course, it's ridiculous to say that the entire generation was responsible, I'm sure there are individual baby boomers who opposed the war but the majority of them did.


As far as lessons learned there were many. Here are just a few:

1. Don't blame the troops if you don't like the policy
2. Let the generals conduct the war to win
3. If you're going to fight, fight to win

I think it's obvious that we're talking about a completely different set of 'lessons'. I'm sure other posters will let you know about them but it's important to note that the advice of many generals, experts and intelligence officers were ignored during the run-up to the Iraqi war.

The logic used to start the Iraq war (the real one, not the lie presented to the public) was the same as it was in Vietnam; that is, the spread of Islamo-fascism had to be halted (domino theory) and a strong stable democracy put in its place that would stabilize the region. This theory had been dis-proven after the loss at Vietnam (communism didn't spread like a virus from SE asia) and again after the Iraq war (installing a democracy didn't stabilize the region, rather it provoked Iran).

[hubcap]

When studying history and trying to prove or disprove causative statements like "did Reagan bring down the soviet union?" there will always lead to some level of speculation. This is mostly because you have to imagine what would've happened had Reagan not existed. Contra-positives are pretty difficult to construct and the tools regularly used by the scientific method aren't really practical in history (most of the time) but the case put forward against Reagan is pretty strong IMO.

I'm sorry, his influence on the USSR just isn't as strong as conservatives wish it to be.
I have never advanced the position that Reagan was entirely responsible, and it is possible the Soviet Union would have eventually collapsed anyway, but I do believe that Reagan's policies expedited the process.



GWB and Dick Cheney were both born somewhere between 1945 and 1955. Most
(if not all) of his administration was either born either immediately after, during or slightly before WWII. His administration and the war was also very popular among older people and unpopular with younger people.

Of course, it's ridiculous to say that the entire generation was responsible, I'm sure there are individual baby boomers who opposed the war but the majority of them did.

I think it's obvious that we're talking about a completely different set of 'lessons'. I'm sure other posters will let you know about them but it's important to note that the advice of many generals, experts and intelligence officers were ignored during the run-up to the Iraqi war.

The logic used to start the Iraq war (the real one, not the lie presented to the public) was the same as it was in Vietnam; that is, the spread of Islamo-fascism had to be halted (domino theory) and a strong stable democracy put in its place that would stabilize the region. This theory had been dis-proven after the loss at Vietnam (communism didn't spread like a virus from SE asia) and again after the Iraq war (installing a democracy didn't stabilize the region, rather it provoked Iran).
I am not debating whether the war against Iraq was a good idea or not. My personal view is that the prosecution of the war militarily was in accordance with lessons learned in Viet Nam. The aftermath of toppling Saddam's regime was in no way similar to Viet Nam. Dealing with the insurgency and Islamic terrorism is something unique to the last 15 years or so, unless we want to go all the way back to the wars against the Barbary pirates, which was the first time the United States fought a war against Muslims.

[PunkinA]

I take full responsibility for my contributions the country. I have voted in every election since I became eligible. I have written to my elected representatives, I have spoken with them personally, and I have been a law-abiding citizen and taxpayer.


You're painting with an awfully broad brush there friend. Where I grew up we didn't rely on the government for transfer payments. I think you will find that a much higher incidence of that type of government assistance goes to the urban population.

The current generation seems to me much more interested in receiving a check from the government for something than my generation does.

I detect a lot of anger in the tone of your words. I can assure you that my opinion of social security is not favorable.

Hubcap, nobody called you on this. Social Security is by far the largest transfer program in effect. I am not sure about its rural to urban statistics, by I am aware of what payouts look like for Gen-Xers. I also know about expectations. The boomers are the last generation I know of with their hands out People my age have no fantasies about making our kids pay for our retirement. 80% of people my age expect no benefit from the system they pay into all their lives. Boomers on the other hand could not fathom a world in which someone else was going to foot the bill. Let's talk about a generation dependent upon the government.

Let's admit that Gen-Xers know they will be providing benefits for older whiners with no expectation of return for ourselves. Which generation is interested in a check?

Calling younger generations lazy or irresponsible is blatantly accusing someone else of the very crime Boomers are committing now, and intend to continue committing until they die. This is the standard Boomer M.O., deny culpability and pass the responsibility off to the next guy (me). Forgive me for my lack of awe.

I also hear a lot of older people who think Social Security is a bad plan. Their moral vision hasn't got in the way of collecting though. Aren't words great. You can say lots of heartfelt intentions you would never really act on. Forgive my lack of awe.

[hubcap]

Hubcap, nobody called you on this. Social Security is by far the largest transfer program in effect. I am not sure about its rural to urban statistics, by I am aware of what payouts look like for Gen-Xers. I also know about expectations. The boomers are the last generation I know of with their hands out People my age have no fantasies about making our kids pay for our retirement. 80% of people my age expect no benefit from the system they pay into all their lives. Boomers on the other hand could not fathom a world in which someone else was going to foot the bill. Let's talk about a generation dependent upon the government.
If your generation has learned the lesson then how come so many are in favor of creating more government programs that result in transfer payments?

Let's admit that Gen-Xers know they will be providing benefits for older whiners with no expectation of return for ourselves. Which generation is interested in a check?
For the record, I don't expect to receive a dime back from the Social Security Ponzi Scheme. It will be broke before I am able to retire.

Calling younger generations lazy or irresponsible is blatantly accusing someone else of the very crime Boomers are committing now, and intend to continue committing until they die. This is the standard Boomer M.O., deny culpability and pass the responsibility off to the next guy (me). Forgive me for my lack of awe.
I don't recall calling anyone lazy or irresponsible. Who are you referring to?

You seem to think I'm the designated apologist for the "Baby Boomers" when I have on more than one occasion pointed out that I am NOT a "Boomer".

Not all the people of any generation share the same view of the world or the government.

Placing people into "groups" is a very constrained view. People are individuals, not groups.

[Night Runner]

I'm not denying that it was incredibly corrupt. In fact I wouldn't deny that the United States is incredibly corrupt currently. Whether it would have eventually collapsed on its own or not is I suppose, a matter of speculation.
Just like it's a matter of speculation whether Reagan accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union.

I think it is myopic to insist that an entire generation of people were responsible for the invasion of Iraq. The GWB administration was behind the war in Iraq.

Like Stickman said, that was a Baby Boomer administration - voted in not once but twice by Baby Boomers (since we established that us young people don't vote). It's popular to be anti-war and anti-Bush now, but at least half of those people voted for him and endorsed his policies. So yes, I would say that the entire generation of people was responsible for his administration and for letting it get away with the war and oh so many other things...

As far as lessons learned there were many. Here are just a few:

1. Don't blame the troops if you don't like the policy
2. Let the generals conduct the war to win
3. If you're going to fight, fight to win
And all of those lessons were blatantly disregarded by the last Baby Boomer administration. (See previous paragraph.)


Placing people into "groups" is a very constrained view. People are individuals, not groups.
Then what's the point of all this? Isn't your entire point that the group that consists of young and middle-aged people is irresponsible? :rolleyes:

[Stickman]

Which is it Hubcap? You're really confusing me here.

What do you think the world would look like if the boomers had just rolled over and let the Soviet Union had its way with the world?

I have never advanced the position that Reagan was entirely responsible, and it is possible the Soviet Union would have eventually collapsed anyway, but I do believe that Reagan's policies expedited the process.

Were the Boomers the cause of the fall of the Soviet Union or did they simply facilitate what would inevitably happen anyways?

The current generation seems to me much more interested in receiving a check from the government for something than my generation does.

Placing people into "groups" is a very constrained view. People are individuals, not groups.

Is the current generation more interested in receiving a check from the government than "my generation" or are opinions best sorted by individuals rather than by generation?

Regardless I think the thread is over now. No one is seriously debating the existence of an "NWO" or shadow society led by young socialists against the last bastion of free-thinking boomers.

[hubcap]

When you get down to analyzing the issue it is difficult to assign the relative "blame" or "success" on an entire generation of people because in spite of what the majority of a group of people did, there are always some who were "against", just as some were against the war in Viet Nam, or the war in Iraq.

Upon closer analysis the issues are always more complex than may appear on the surface.

[RBM]

Just like it's a matter of speculation whether Reagan accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union.

This is great myth built by one side of the ideologue aisle. Since I'd just come across a credible source to put the myth to serious doubt, at a minimum, I thought I'd share. The story isn't new, but a new print source is:

How Gorbachev Slowed the Arms Race, Tale More Complex Than Reagan's Will (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
...
Documents from inside the Kremlin during the late 1980s -- as well as diaries, memoirs, records of Politburo discussions and interviews with key participants -- tell a more complex story about one of the Cold War's most important turning points. The evidence shows that Reagan's dream of a global shield was not the driving force that reversed the arms race. Rather, the agent of change was Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. He decided not to compete with Reagan on missile defense, and at the same time he was waging a fierce internal struggle against his own military-industrial complex to turn back the Cold War arms buildup.
...

Here's the Amazon review page. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

My original source was the blog of Steve LeVine, The Oil and Glory. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Here's Steve's set up:

The second excerpt is Hoffman's take-down of the stubborn fiction that Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was responsible for Mikhail Gorbachev's decision to call a halt to the arms race.


History can be a double-edged sword, eh ?

[Holiman]

I really want to bring this back towards the begining with Ray9, Ive wanted to join in but I felt this entire thread went in so many directiones that I couldnt figure it out. In my personal opinion you seem to make shotgun like comments with little to no thought behind them and then make other statements the same way. You dont seem to care much which statement works and which dont, you head towards another comment regardless of how the last fares.

So far you make some comments I personally find discriminatory such as;

The boomer generation is probably the last vestige of free thinking Americans


When confronted with that statement you respond;

When I started this thread I did not mean to infer that only boomers can think freely.

Kinda contradictory no?

Next discriminatory statement

If one researches the percentages of intact families where the head of household was a male, ones sees a steep and pernicious decline after the "Great Society" that continues to this day. The single greatest contribution of the "Great Society" was the destruction of the traditional family consisting of a father, a mother and children. In other words, the "Great Society" created and propagated the single parent family headed by females.

Even confronted by facts you make no amends or even acknowledge you might be seriously skewed in your viewpoints.

So I have no intrest in attacking you personally more or less I want you to take note of how I see your comments. I would actually really like you to back up statements youve made in this thread. Do you research these concepts?


Questions you have raised I might be intrested in hearing more about if you can back them up and not shotgun more unrelated points.

the modern, global assault on American culture, traditions and most of all the constitution that created the United States

Institutionalized indoctrination includes things like not allowing the Boy Scouts on school property because they won’t accept homosexuals or barring Christmas trees and Christmas greetings because they violate the separation of church and state or may offend groups that don’t recognize traditional holidays.


All of the major industries are abandoning their homeland to hang their shingle on foreign shores in a calculated effort to calibrate the American standard of living downward to level the global playing field

Spanish signage in Walmart is the dark humor of the times as it heralds the onslaught of borderless and lawless societies and the death of sovereign nations



You point out Mexico involvment with the NWO by bringing up a single court case about border agents breaking US law and then being brought to trial /boggle.

You continuously point to liberalism and socialist indoctrination into our school system but you have yet to back the statements up.

The "Great Society" effects; what is was, what is left of it, and how its affected people.


I absolutely hate to say I disagree with every single thing you say so instead I would ask you to attempt to turn me around to your way of thinking.

[yoginimama]

This is great myth built by one side of the ideologue aisle. Since I'd just come across a credible source to put the myth to serious doubt, at a minimum, I thought I'd share. The story isn't new, but a new print source is...

Regarding Russia, the work of Stephen F. Cohen is really excellent too. Some good places to start:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (in which he argues against the idea that the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a political entity was inevitable...but I think what we've been discussing on this thread is the idea that the sclerotic beast of the 1970s and early 1980s had to change in *some* way. Cohen is arguing that it could have happened "more gradual[ly], consensual[ly] and less traumatic[ally].")

Cohen's view of the Russian past, present and its relationship with the US is very nuanced and enlightening. It has a lot of relevance to the topic of where the Boomers have been and where they (and we) are going in relationship to one of the major aspects of 20th century history.

[Undead Bonzi]

What do you think the world would look like if the boomers had just rolled over and let the Soviet Union had its way with the world?

Then regular as the sun rise comes the rebuttal...but what about the Cold War!?

What about it? It does nothing to disprove my point about government voting demographics or responsibility for current governmental woes does it?

Care to answer to question that matters rather than delving further into the Cold War? The point is absolutely irrelevant as I though I had made clear.

You continue to avoid my point about voting demographics and political power of boomers vs X and Y and you continue hide behind some Cold War argument and more annoying still you continue to state that the younger generations are creating legislation and demanding hand outs which is in complete contradiction to who holds the reigns of government. Does not compute.

[hubcap]

You continue to avoid my point about voting demographics and political power of boomers vs X and Y and you continue hide behind some Cold War argument and more annoying still you continue to state that the younger generations are creating legislation and demanding hand outs which is in complete contradiction to who holds the reigns of government. Does not compute.
I will point out (again) that not all people in any generation or demographic share the same views on any issue. The generation which consisted of the baby boomers did do the heavy lifting in the Cold War. Not everyone was in favor of the way the United States fought the Cold War. I remember quite well the war in Nicaragua. U.S. involvement in that war was quite divisive, as was the war in Viet Nam.

Again, you seem to be jousting with windmills. I am perfectly content with admitting that any or all of these issues are quite complex and making blanket statements about them does not provide realistic answers.

Great things have been achieved many times during the course of the history of the United States, and many tragedies have occurred. FDR who is considered by many to be one of the greatest presidents of the United States perpetrated one of the greatest crimes ever committed by anyone in the United States. So was he great or not?

[Ray9]

If one researches the percentages of intact families where the head of household was a male, ones sees a steep and pernicious decline after the "Great Society" that continues to this day. The single greatest contribution of the "Great Society" was the destruction of the traditional family consisting of a father, a mother and children. In other words, the "Great Society" created and propagated the single parent family headed by females.

Related article:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Holiman]

I can say I got 4/5ths of the way done reading when I became annoyed with the travel the author went with the article. But I have to wonder if YOU read it as well? The link does not in any way support your statement although the author does his best to turn the article around towards your ideology. First let me disect your statement to show you why I find it discriminatory and an overall bad statement.


If one researches the percentages of intact families where the head of household was a male, ones sees a steep and pernicious decline after the "Great Society" that continues to this day.

Now perhaps you find as the author did that the Feminists were somehow also supporting the destruction of marriage but its a reach at best and insulting to most. Did the feminist movement go to far however is an intersting argument and one worth persuing.

Even the author though doesnt take your leap of logic that man should rule the home. If that is how you wish to proceed then make that argument Im waiting.

Now to the second part.


The single greatest contribution of the "Great Society" was the destruction of the traditional family consisting of a father, a mother and children. In other words, the "Great Society" created and propagated the single parent family headed by females.

Sad if your author was honest in his article he states examples of only Democrats or Liberals were taking the subject on and although he strongly criticizes every thing they did they were the only examples of efforts he was able to provide. A telling statement alone. He only gives any recognition to conservatives who have nothing constructive to add to the debate. There were alot of great points and concepts brought up in the article and in this discussion but you and the ideology of that author have focused only on blaming medicaid and welfare, you both seem to be entirely ignorant of the economics and social reality of the nuclear family and how this was not created or supported by goverment but industry.

To be blunt you have failed to make a solid argument to support your statement.

[lurk]

Being introduced to the work of Neil Howe has helped me gain a little perspective on the whole generational thing. I haven't read any of his books yet, but have been exposed to some of his ideas. Howe has identified four generational archetypes that seem to repeat through history. He calls these archetypes the Hero, the Prophet, the Artist and the Nomad. His website is at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The spoiler is a wall of text I’ve excerpted from a recent interview.
Hero generations are usually protectively raised as kids. They come of age at a time of emergency or Crisis and become known as young adults for helping society resolve the Crisis, hopefully successfully. Once the Crisis is resolved, they become institutionally powerful in midlife and remain focused on outer-world challenges and solutions. In their old age, they are greeted by a spiritual Awakening, a cultural upheaval fired by the young. This is the typical life story of a Hero generation.
One example of the Hero archetype is the G.I. Generation, the soldiers of World War II, who became an institutional powerhouse after the war and then in old age confronted the young hippies and protesters of the 1960s. Going back in American history, we have seen many other Hero archetypes, for example the generation of Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, and President Monroe. These were the heroes of the American Revolution, who in old age were greeted by the second Great Awakening and a new youth generation of fiery Prophets.

After the Hero archetype comes the Artist archetype. Artist generations have a very different location in history -- they are the children of the Crisis. For Hero generations, child protection rises from first cohort to last. By the time Artists come along, child protection reaches suffocating levels. Artists come of age as young adults during the post-Crisis era, when conformity seems like the best path to success, and they tend to be collectively risk averse. Artists see themselves as providing the expertise and refinement that can both improve and adorn the enormous new institutional innovations that have been forged during the Crisis. They typically experience a cultural Awakening in midlife, and their lives speed up as the culture transforms.

A great example of the Artist archetype is the so-called "Silent" Generation, the post World War II young adults who married early and moved into gleaming new suburbs in the 1950s, went through their midlife crises in the '70s and '80s, and are today the very affluent, active seniors retiring into gated lifestyle communities.

The third archetype is what we call a Prophet archetype. The most recent example of this archetype is the Baby Boom Generation. Prophet generations grow up as children during a period of post-Crisis affluence and come of age during a period of cultural upheaval. They become moralistic and values-obsessed midlife leaders and parents, and as they enter old age, they steer the country into the next great outer-world social or political Crisis. Boomers, for example, grew up during the Postwar American High, came of age during the Consciousness Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, and are now entering old age.

Finally there is what we call a Nomad archetype. Nomads are typically raised as children during Awakenings, the great cultural upheavals of our history. Whereas the Prophet archetype is indulgently raised as children, the Nomad archetype is underprotected and completely exposed as children. They learn early that they can't trust basic institutions to look out for their best interests and come of age as free agents whose watchword is individualism. They are the great realists and pragmatists in our nation's history.

The most recent example of the Nomad archetype is Generation X. This generation grew up during the social turmoil of the 1960s and '70s and are now beginning to enter midlife. They are the ones that know how to get things done on the ground. They are the stay-at-home dads and security moms trying to give their kids more of a childhood than they themselves had. Their burden is that they tend not to trust large institutions and do not have a strong connection to public life. They forge their identity and value system by "going it alone" and staying off the radar screen of government. It could be very interesting to see the rest of the life story of this generation, particularly as they take over leadership positions. HERO
One Hero generation that is alive today is the G.I. Generation, born between 1901 and 1924. They came of age with the New Deal, World War II, and the Great Depression. They are today in their mid-80s and beyond, and their influence is waning.

Today's other example of a Hero archetype is the Millennial Generation, born from 1982 to about 2003 or 2004. These are today's young people, who are just beginning to be well known to most Americans. They fill K-12 schools, colleges, graduate schools, and have recently begun entering the workplace. We associate them with dramatic improvements in youth behaviors, which are often underreported by the media. Since Millennials have come along, we've seen huge declines in violent crime, teen pregnancy, and the most damaging forms of drug abuse, as well as higher rates of community service and volunteering. This is a generation that reminds us in many respects of the young G.I.s nearly a century ago, back when they were the first boy scouts and girl scouts between 1910 and 1920. ARTIST
… one example of [the Artist] archetype is the Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1942. This generation was too young to remember anything about America before the Great Crash of 1929, and too young to be of fighting age during World War II.

That 1925 birth year is filled with people like William F. Buckley and Bobby Kennedy, first-wave Silent who just missed World War II. Many of them were actually in the camps in California waiting for the invasion of Japan when they heard that the war was over. Part of their generational experience is that sense of just barely missing something big. Surveys show that this generation does not like to call themselves "senior citizens." They did not fight in World War II. They did not build the A bomb. They are more like "senior partners." Unlike G.I.s, they are flexible elders, focused on the needs of others. Many of them are highly engaged in the family activities of their children and grandchildren. In politics, they are today's elder advisors, not powerhouse leaders.

There is a new generation of the Artist archetype just now beginning to arrive. They started being born, we think, around 2004 or 2005. We did a contest on our website to choose a name for this new generation, and the winner was Homeland Generation, reflecting the fact that they are being incredibly well protected. So we are tentatively calling them the Homelanders.

This generation will have no memory of anything before the financial meltdown of 2008 and the events that are about to unfold in America. If our research is correct, this generation's childhood will be a time of urgency and rapid historical change. Unlike the Millennials, who will remember childhood during the good times of 1980s and '90s, the Homelanders will recall their childhood as a time of national crisis. PROPHET
There is only one Prophet archetype generation alive today: the Boomer Generation. We define them as being born between 1943 and 1960. Those born in 1943 would have been part of the free-speech movement at Berkeley in 1964, the first fiery class whose peers include Bill Bradley, Newt Gingrich, and Oliver North. The last cohorts of this generation came of age with President Carter in the Iran Hostage Crisis. NOMAD
For the Nomad archetype, we again have only one example alive today, and that is Generation X. We define Gen Xers as being born between 1961 and 1981. Actually, there may be a few members of the earlier Nomad generation still around – those of the Lost Generation born from 1883 to 1900, but today they would be around 110. This was the generation that grew up during the third Great Awakening, the doughboys who went through World War I. They were the generation that put the "roar" into the "Roaring '20s" – the rum runners, barnstormers, and entrepreneurs of that period. They were big risk-takers.

[Ray9]

To be blunt you have failed to make a solid argument to support your statement.



Be as blunt as you like, I disagree. One only has to be aware of the relationahip between cause and effect to conclude that the deterioration of certain selected groups is the result of bad social engineering and the politicizing of social problems. The programs of "The Great society" exacerbated issues of personal responsibility and expanded them to critical proportions for the political purpose of creating and maintaining a huge beaurocracy of vested interests that functions not for the benefit of society but for the benefit of itself. Those who argue against this are like Holocaust deniers. They refuse to see what is before their eyes.

[SShack]

Lurk, I'm quite familiar with the works of Strauss and Howe's generational theories and started a thread on it here that didn't take off. (I was exploring the idea that there were a greater percentage of NTs among Gen. Xers given that they had to learn to fend for themselves)

It's also why I'm staying out of this thread. Knowing what I know about the Baby Boomer generation, I don't think there's any possibility, rational or other, of convincing a Baby Boomer that the world is going to be just fine without him and that it is not, in fact, coming to an end. Prophets indeed.

And of course, the Nomad that I am, I'm confident I'll get along just fine even if the world does end.

[Hamburglar]

Be as blunt as you like, I disagree. One only has to be aware of the relationahip between cause and effect to conclude that the deterioration of certain selected groups is the result of bad social engineering and the politicizing of social problems. The programs of "The Great society" exacerbated issues of personal responsibility and expanded them to critical proportions for the political purpose of creating and maintaining a huge beaurocracy of vested interests that functions not for the benefit of society but for the benefit of itself. Those who argue against this are like Holocaust deniers. They refuse to see what is before their eyes.

Conversely, business over decades rushed to the bottom, and forgot to take care of the employees as well as the shareholders. This caused massive social problems, like poverty, crime, increasing birth rate, etc. So I suppose we could have asked business to step up to the plate and play ball...but I think at the time it was just better for them to cut a check. Maybe we need to reevaluate that process, but you really shouldn't criticize past efforts to solve actual problems if they aren't perfect-considering that the problems were/are worse than the solution.

[Holiman]

Be as blunt as you like, I disagree. One only has to be aware of the relationahip between cause and effect to conclude that the deterioration of certain selected groups is the result of bad social engineering and the politicizing of social problems. The programs of "The Great society" exacerbated issues of personal responsibility and expanded them to critical proportions for the political purpose of creating and maintaining a huge beaurocracy of vested interests that functions not for the benefit of society but for the benefit of itself. Those who argue against this are like Holocaust deniers. They refuse to see what is before their eyes.



First I do not enjoy being compared to a holocaust denier even in a left handed way. Cause and effect is a great argument but you have yet, I would love if you could show your reasoning... but you havent. The deterioration of the entire family has been ongoing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. (see this is where I humbly attempt to back up a statement)

You continue to blame 'The Great society' but well before that large families were losing ground in rural farm life large families are an asset however, in industrial city life large families are detrimental. You would also need to take studies and research about how before the infant mortality rate and family structure changes to be blunt its alot more than some liberal politician rubbing his hands to create the perfect dumb society begging goverment to guide them.

The further family problems were caused in the 40's. During WW2 they needed women working in the factories until the men came home, this opened the flood gates of women in the workforce. While healthy and good for equality the family structure took the assault the concept of barefoot and pregnant gave way and June Cleaver couldnt stop the later generation from stepping out from their husbands shadows.

This leaves us where we have family in deep trouble and goverment steps in to stop children from starving or being malnourished, which you condemn. The trend of single mothers while perhaps peaking at different rates in inner cities with minorities the truth is that its been steadily growing for everyone at a fairly steady clip.

Now its your turn your play Ive completely shown in a small quick clip that your opinion is deeply and unquestionably naive and untrue. How would you fix this problem whats your non liberal anti goverment controlling and basically free solution ?

[Lucid]

Being introduced to the work of Neil Howe has helped me gain a little perspective on the whole generational thing. I haven't read any of his books yet, but have been exposed to some of his ideas. Howe has identified four generational archetypes that seem to repeat through history. He calls these archetypes the Hero, the Prophet, the Artist and the Nomad.

That's really interesting. So is Generation Y a Hero generation then? (lets hope so!:)) And the children of Generation Y will be the next Boomers.
By this theory, Ray, those you're currently decrying are going to be the parents of the next generation you're revering. :laugh:

I don't think there's any possibility, rational or other, of convincing a Baby Boomer that the world is going to be just fine without him and that it is not, in fact, coming to an end. Prophets indeed.

Indeed. I think boomers have some trouble understanding that they're not the center of the universe. They're the generational only children.

And of course, the Nomad that I am, I'm confident I'll get along just fine even if the world does end.

Word.

[lurk]

LOL - I choose not to take offense at being accused of such self-absorption as to consider myself the center of the universe. ;) It's probably important to keep in mind that the Boomer generation, like all the others, is made up of lots of individuals.

The depressing thing about Howe's work is that it suggests that we haven't seen the crisis yet, just the leading edge. The upside is that there's reason to believe a new Hero generation will rise to the challenge and the world will (hopefully) be a better place.

Howe identifies Obama as the first Gen X president, saying
His life story has a "dazed and confused" aspect. He made his own way against a background of adult neglect and lack of structure. It's interesting that he is the first leader in America to call himself "post-Boomer." As a matter of fact, he talks regularly about how he intends to put an end to everything dysfunctional about Boomer politics: the polarization, the culture wars, the scorched-earth rhetoric, the identity politics, all of that. I understand a lot of people do not believe he can actually do this, but it's interesting that this is the rhetoric he chooses. That rhetoric is one reason why the vast majority of Millennials voted for him.

Obama is the opening wedge of Gen Xers who will assume very high leadership posts. They are not yet the senior generals in control of the military, but they are taking over the reins of government and, of course, the top spots in American businesses. The spoiler is a probably OT rant that’s may provide a little insight into how I see things.
FWIW, I didn’t vote for Obama. I don’t agree with his agenda. I think the US is as ready for socialism as Iraq (or Russia for that matter) is for capitalist democracy. I don’t pretend to know what’s best for the nation, and I don’t particularly trust anybody who thinks he does. I’ve lived my entire life taking care of myself and my family and I don’t need or want anyone else to take over doing it for me.

I got out of the Army in 1969 and have worked at least full time for each of the last 40 years. I’ve been very fortunate that I’ve never needed assistance, however I don’t feel anybody ever gave me anything either. I’ve managed to save some money to provide for myself and my wife in our dotage, and I feel that I have a right to that money. I harbor no illusion that I’ll get anything out of Social Security that’s commensurate to what I paid into over the past 4 decades.

And in case it isn’t obvious from the the above, I don’t trust government.

[Lucid]

LOL - I choose not to take offense at being accused of such self-absorption as to consider myself the center of the universe. ;) It's probably important to keep in mind that the Boomer generation, like all the others, is made up of lots of individuals.

Don't take what I said the wrong way. My mom is a boomer and so are many of the people in my life and I love and respect them.

I say that boomers are self centered in the same way I say that only children are self centered. It's a generalization and it's not something I mean to imply that boomers (or only children) aren't also generally good people who contribute meaningful things to society and to the people in their lives.

But you guys are kind of spoiled. :p

[hubcap]

But you guys are kind of spoiled. :p
Dang, I thought it was the children of the baby boomers that were spoiled.;D

[Lucid]

Dang, I thought it was the children of the baby boomers that were spoiled.;D

Didn't you read the thing about the generation types? I'm right on the edge of Nomad and Hero. Making me inherently superior to you coddled boomers. :p

[hubcap]

Didn't you read the thing about the generation types? I'm right on the edge of Nomad and Hero. Making me inherently superior to you coddled boomers. :p
That is certainly one point of view.;)

[lurk]

But you guys are kind of spoiled.
But of course you're not.. :p

Dang, I thought it was the children of the baby boomers that were spoiled.
Nah, it was the spoiled boomers who neglected their children. See what we got?! :knife:

Didn't you read the thing about the generation types? I'm right on the edge of Nomad and Hero. Making me inherently superior to you coddled boomers.
Or at least it's nice for you to think so. :)

[Ray9]

As a boomer I have witnessed many changes in the American experiment. Notice I use the word "experiment". This is because our way of life, our governance, our politics, our social structure are based on relatively new ideas that cut against the grain of most of human history. The concept of democracy is not new but the notion that the individual is important and the centerpiece of society is a revolutionary idea not only by history's standards but by today's standards. We are by no means entitled to any expectations of continued success because we are after all, still an experiment. The world is watching us as they have always watched us because we are so different from anything that came before us. We are the last best hope for the individual and the happiness and security that comes with personal autonomy. The world is watching us because this is where they come when they flee oppression, misery and hopelessness. The minds and hearts of many are with us but the world is a big place and many would celebrate our failure. It's up to us, we control our destiny. There is no outside force that can take us down but as historian Arnold Toynbee stated: great civilizations don't die from murder they die by suicide. Today we are under attack from within. They've been gathering their forces and they are on the march under the flag of statism. We are not a perfect society but our place is superior to any civilization that has ever existed on this Earth. I have faith that the freedom to choose will prevail in the hearts of most Americans. The world is watching. I am a boomer, I am and individual and this is my belief.

[Malkavia]

....so if I was born in 1989....what's my generation supposed to be?

[Hamburglar]

As a boomer I have witnessed many changes in the American experiment. Notice I use the word "experiment". This is because our way of life, our governance, our politics, our social structure are based on relatively new ideas that cut against the grain of most of human history. The concept of democracy is not new but the notion that the individual is important and the centerpiece of society is a revolutionary idea not only by history's standards but by today's standards. We are by no means entitled to any expectations of continued success because we are after all, still an experiment. The world is watching us as they have always watched us because we are so different from anything that came before us. We are the last best hope for the individual and the happiness and security that comes with personal autonomy. The world is watching us because this is where they come when they flee oppression, misery and hopelessness. The minds and hearts of many are with us but the world is a big place and many would celebrate our failure. It's up to us, we control our destiny. There is no outside force that can take us down but as historian Arnold Toynbee stated: great civilizations don't die from murder they die by suicide. Today we are under attack from within. They've been gathering their forces and they are on the march under the flag of statism. We are not a perfect society but our place is superior to any civilization that has ever existed on this Earth. I have faith that the freedom to choose will prevail in the hearts of most Americans. The world is watching. I am a boomer, I am and individual and this is my belief.

So it is your contention that the federal government is stripping all state and local governments of their power, and simultaneously degrading the constitutional checks and balances? Because statism assumes that power is concentrated at the top. I think you are confusing the issue. As it stands we have a bottom heavy governmental structure - that is, power derives from the people, their associations, and their representatives. The fed does have a tremendous amount of coercive power at its disposal by way of the military- but how often is the President dispatching the troops to achieve a political agenda? You are using a very heavy word in a loose and fast way. The centralization of power is extremely different from a concentration of power. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but it's because concentration implies that it has no accountability, while centralization implies accountability. It's like centralizing stock trading on the floor of the market, the brokers are still accountable to their clients it's a 1:1 relationship. This would be opposed to concentrating the power of regional banks into national banks, which diminishes your authority to have a say in the direction of the banks affairs as an depositor, since you are now 1:30,000,000 versus 1:30,000





Hamburglar added to this post, 9 minutes and 8 seconds later...

....so if I was born in 1989....what's my generation supposed to be?

MTV :D

[lurk]

....so if I was born in 1989....what's my generation supposed to be?
From Howe's interview:
Today's other example of a Hero archetype is the Millennial Generation, born from 1982 to about 2003 or 2004. These are today's young people, who are just beginning to be well known to most Americans. They fill K-12 schools, colleges, graduate schools, and have recently begun entering the workplace. We associate them with dramatic improvements in youth behaviors, which are often underreported by the media. Since Millennials have come along, we've seen huge declines in violent crime, teen pregnancy, and the most damaging forms of drug abuse, as well as higher rates of community service and volunteering. This is a generation that reminds us in many respects of the young G.I.s nearly a century ago, back when they were the first boy scouts and girl scouts between 1910 and 1920.

[SShack]

The demarcation between Gen X and Gen Y (millennial kids) is generally assumed to be the point where you're not really an adult yet but old enough to remember the first space shuttle explosion.

The Kennedy assassination is the line between Boomers and Gen Xers. No doubt the 9/11 attacks will prove to be the line between Gen Y and the next generation.

[hubcap]

The fed does have a tremendous amount of coercive power at its disposal by way of the military- but how often is the President dispatching the troops to achieve a political agenda?
You think the fed can only apply coercive power by using the military?

Try not paying your taxes. Try developing a piece of real estate that you own which some "endangered" rat lives on.

[Malkavia]

From Howe's interview:

Whoop!

I'd like to be a generation that is known for over coming problems that have been a part of society for a long time. :)

I read something one time saying that my generation is the first generation to be un-segregated in schools since pre-k which supposedly is supposed to help when it comes to racial equality.

[Ray9]

So it is your contention that the federal government is stripping all state and local governments of their power, and simultaneously degrading the constitutional checks and balances? Because statism assumes that power is concentrated at the top. I think you are confusing the issue.


It's not that boomers are against change. The problem is that what many see as change today has been tried and is by no means an improvement. As stated before, America is still in the experimental stage and so remains under the micorscope of the world. Government of the people, by the people, for the people is a novel idea and is very different from government "over" the people which is typical of modern societies elsewhere. It appears to many of us that this momentum toward a one world government sees the United states as an obstacle because we demonstrate that average citizens are capable of governing themselves and controling their destinies. This march toward statism is really just an effort to makes us all the same. In other words, they want to kill the experiment. It's up to us to see that this doesn't happen.

[Lucid]

The demarcation between Gen X and Gen Y (millennial kids) is generally assumed to be the point where you're not really an adult yet but old enough to remember the first space shuttle explosion.

Wait... which was the first space shuttle explosion and when did it happen? I remember a space shuttle explosion, but not very well and I don't know which one it was.


(I think I just placed myself).

[phej]

Wait... which was the first space shuttle explosion and when did it happen? I remember a space shuttle explosion, but not very well and I don't know which one it was.


(I think I just placed myself).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (1986)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (2003)

[Ray9]

I saw the 1986 shuttle disaster as basically a publicity stunt gone bad. They had an Asian, they had a black, they had women, they had a school teacher. It was all very politically correct as if that could overcome the laws of physics. It was very heavily advertised. There were going to be lessons from space as little school children around the world watched on classroom monitors. What did the children learn? Well, they learned that politics cannot triumph over science. The school teacher slipped the surly bonds of Earth and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings but never made it to escape velocity because public relations is no match for sound engineering. They learned that important events are sometimes in the control of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. If I were a human born around 1978 and I watched that fiasco unflold I would have developed a very jaded opinion of adults who run the world.

[SShack]

I saw the 1986 shuttle disaster as basically a publicity stunt gone bad. They had an Asian, they had a black, they had women, they had a school teacher. It was all very politically correct as if that could overcome the laws of physics. It was very heavily advertised. There were going to be lessons from space as little school children around the world watched on classroom monitors. What did the children learn? Well, they learned that politics cannot triumph over science. The school teacher slipped the surly bonds of Earth and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings but never made it to escape velocity because public relations is no match for sound engineering. They learned that important events are sometimes in the control of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. If I were a human born around 1978 and I watched that fiasco unflold I would have developed a very jaded opinion of adults who run the world.

And thus, I give you: Generation X.

[lurk]

I saw the 1986 shuttle disaster as basically a publicity stunt gone bad. They had an Asian, they had a black, they had women, they had a school teacher. It was all very politically correct as if that could overcome the laws of physics.
Having a hard time making the connection here, Ray. Sounds like you're saying that the failure was attributable to the fact that occupants of the shuttle were selected for PC reasons. While I'm inclined to agree that that was the selection criteria, I fail to see how that's related to the problems at Morton-Thiakol that resulted in the explosion.

[Lucid]

I saw the 1986 shuttle disaster as basically a publicity stunt gone bad. They had an Asian, they had a black, they had women, they had a school teacher. It was all very politically correct as if that could overcome the laws of physics. It was very heavily advertised. There were going to be lessons from space as little school children around the world watched on classroom monitors. What did the children learn? Well, they learned that politics cannot triumph over science. The school teacher slipped the surly bonds of Earth and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings but never made it to escape velocity because public relations is no match for sound engineering. They learned that important events are sometimes in the control of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. If I were a human born around 1978 and I watched that fiasco unflold I would have developed a very jaded opinion of adults who run the world.

Well I was born 2 years later and that's not what I thought. I was barely aware of it, and when I did think of it I thought it was a sad accident. Because at 6 I was not prone to paranoia.

And thus, I give you: Generation X.

Which is funny :)

Having a hard time making the connection here, Ray. Sounds like you're saying that the failure was attributable to the fact that occupants of the shuttle were selected for PC reasons. While I'm inclined to agree that that was the selection criteria, I fail to see how that's related to the problems at Morton-Thiakol that resulted in the explosion.

Yeah, do space shuttles normally explode if the PC-ness becomes too great? That's a law of physics I had been previously unaware of.

[firebee]

Yeah, do space shuttles normally explode if the PC-ness becomes too great? That's a law of physics I had been previously unaware of.

Well, here's the thing: The engineers from Morton-Thiokol actually did figure out a relationship between O-ring brittleness and number of Inspirational(TM) elements in the shuttle mission (putting a cute dog on, incidentally, would have been instant flamey death), but unfortunately they were engineers and consequently explained this issue in the third bullet point of slide 27 in a 149-slide presentation. So the people who were awake to see it were basically wishing for death anyway, hence the lack of interest in pursuing the problem.

Actually, I would almost believe that the slightly older set who experienced Challenger as something that was hyped up as a special moment and displayed in assemblies, et cetera, might have had something of an early disillusioning experience centered around that event. But it takes more than one event, generally, to shape a person's attitude towards the world.

[Ray9]

They learned that important events are sometimes in the control of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.


Since some have missed the point entirely this is the key line. The engineers were over-ruled by politicians and public relations types that focused on political points and the bottom line.

[Holiman]

I was in 7th grade science class when this happened we were all outside since I lived in central florida we watched it go up. I remember to this day our teacher kept saying "that isnt right" after it blew up, but we all knew people were dead. I remember that up until that point space shuttle flights were pretty regular and uneventful and I never thought much about the safety involved. As for Ray's comments once again he leaves me at a loss for words. Personally I think it simply reminded everyone involved how utterly dangerouse strapping people inside of an aluminum can ontop of huge rockets and explosive gases.

Also if you were around at the time they spent a long time finding a teacher it was something of a spectacle and meant to be one, she was picked by students and teachers. The accident I think came about from complacency if you look back this has been a recurring theme in the space program.

[firebee]

Since some have missed the point entirely this is the key line. The engineers were over-ruled by politicians and public relations types that focused on political points and the bottom line.

The engineers were overruled by managers who were concerned about meeting performance targets in their contract. This has to do with the composition of the Challenger crew exactly how?

[lurk]

From wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._Commission_investigatio n)
The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, also known as the Rogers Commission (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) after its chairman, was formed to investigate the disaster. Beyond identifying the cause of the accident as a failure in the O-rings, the report also considered the contributing causes of the accident, including the failure of both NASA and Morton Thiokol to respond adequately to the design flaw and the decision-making process involved in the launch decision. The commission concluded that the Challenger disaster was "an accident rooted in history."

(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-Rogers_vol6-31)The U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) also conducted hearings, and on October 29, 1986 released its own report on the Challenger accident.[33] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-32) The committee reviewed the findings of the Rogers Commission as part of its investigation, and agreed with the Rogers Commission as to the technical causes of the accident. However, it differed from the committee in its assessment of the accident's contributing causes.

...the Committee feels that the underlying problem which led to the Challenger accident was not poor communication or underlying procedures as implied by the Rogers Commission conclusion. Rather, the fundamental problem was poor technical decision making over a period of several years by top NASA and contractor personnel, who failed to act decisively to solve the increasingly serious anomalies in the Solid Rocket Booster joints.So I agree that the entire project was focused on the event being a public relations coup for NASA and its contractors. Clearly bad technical decisions were made. But from having worked in the aerospace industry for some time, I suspect that the bad decisions were due to cost and schedule considerations. The PC-ness of crew selection was just window dressing.

[Ray9]

I never said the shuttle crashed because the crew was pc. The astronauts had no more responsibility for the crash than actors in a poorly directed film.

[lurk]

I never said the shuttle crashed because the crew was pc. The astronauts had no more responsibility for the crash than actors in a poorly directed film.
Then I misunderstood. My apologies.

[Ray9]

Boomers may be last generation to personally remember scarcity. By scarcity I mean real scarcity not the theory of scarcity. Boomers have distant memories of real poverty as well. By poverty I mean authentic poverty, not the paper poverty that exits today for political purposes. Scarcity is a situation whereby there is a lack of basic goods and services for the entirety of the populace. In other words, no Walmarts, fast food restaurants, successful competing supermarket chains etc. Basic needs like clothing and housing are expensive and hard to come by for everyone not just the disadvantaged. Scarcity also includes a lack of dignified employment paying decent wages or an absence of educational opportunities. The depression generation experienced these miserable conditions while the boomers tasted only the last remnants of true scarcity.

Poverty as defined today in America is not true poverty. It is government-issue poverty for the purpose of supporting and maintaining a large, dependant and unproductive underclass. Contemporary American poverty is not like the poverty of the past where emaciated victims scrounged through garbage to keep from starving. Today’s “poor” by government standards are often overweight representatives of multi-generational dependence, single-parent families and state-sanctioned indolence. The American public got an excellent snapshot of modern poverty when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. When the flood waters cleared the “poor” took to the streets in a stampede of obesity looking for the nearest McDonald’s. Because they had been indoctrinated for decades to regard government benefits as “manna from heaven”, they ignored warnings to evacuate or take steps to provide for their own survival. After the disaster many simply relocated to other states to continue collecting benefits having learned nothing about personal responsibility. Poverty in America does not fit the classic definition used by the rest of the world where victims are upwardly mobile looking for ways to improve their circumstances. It is government-sanctioned pseudo-poverty that propagates itself for the perpetuation of the massive beaurocracies that service it.

[Visum]

And who would a thunk that those same free-thinkers would be the ones to implement a new world order, and indoctrinate the next generation. :bucktooth:

[Valiyn]

Boomers may be last generation to personally remember scarcity. By scarcity I mean real scarcity not the theory of scarcity. Boomers have distant memories of real poverty as well. By poverty I mean authentic poverty, not the paper poverty that exits today for political purposes. Scarcity is a situation whereby there is a lack of basic goods and services for the entirety of the populace. In other words, no Walmarts, fast food restaurants, successful competing supermarket chains etc. Basic needs like clothing and housing are expensive and hard to come by for everyone not just the disadvantaged. Scarcity also includes a lack of dignified employment paying decent wages or an absence of educational opportunities. The depression generation experienced these miserable conditions while the boomers tasted only the last remnants of true scarcity.

Poverty as defined today in America is not true poverty. It is government-issue poverty for the purpose of supporting and maintaining a large, dependant and unproductive underclass. Contemporary American poverty is not like the poverty of the past where emaciated victims scrounged through garbage to keep from starving. Today’s “poor” by government standards are often overweight representatives of multi-generational dependence, single-parent families and state-sanctioned indolence. The American public got an excellent snapshot of modern poverty when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. When the flood waters cleared the “poor” took to the streets in a stampede of obesity looking for the nearest McDonald’s. Because they had been indoctrinated for decades to regard government benefits as “manna from heaven”, they ignored warnings to evacuate or take steps to provide for their own survival. After the disaster many simply relocated to other states to continue collecting benefits having learned nothing about personal responsibility. Poverty in America does not fit the classic definition used by the rest of the world where victims are upwardly mobile looking for ways to improve their circumstances. It is government-sanctioned pseudo-poverty that propagates itself for the perpetuation of the massive beaurocracies that service it.

Show us some proof of these claims. And evidence that supports boomers as free-thinkers. Show us some statistics, some factual evidence or something solid. Your just spouting rhetoric right now that has no base that you've shown us.

I know people who were uplifted from New Orleans and they were as hard of workers as anyone else around them from my first hand observations.

I don't think those in poverty are there because they are lazy. I think they got the short end of luck, public schooling, religion, family debt, etc more likely then raw laziness.

[Profit]

Boomers may be last generation to personally remember scarcity. By scarcity I mean real scarcity not the theory of scarcity. Boomers have distant memories of real poverty as well. By poverty I mean authentic poverty, not the paper poverty that exits today for political purposes. Scarcity is a situation whereby there is a lack of basic goods and services for the entirety of the populace. In other words, no Walmarts, fast food restaurants, successful competing supermarket chains etc. Basic needs like clothing and housing are expensive and hard to come by for everyone not just the disadvantaged. Scarcity also includes a lack of dignified employment paying decent wages or an absence of educational opportunities. The depression generation experienced these miserable conditions while the boomers tasted only the last remnants of true scarcity.

Poverty as defined today in America is not true poverty. It is government-issue poverty for the purpose of supporting and maintaining a large, dependant and unproductive underclass. Contemporary American poverty is not like the poverty of the past where emaciated victims scrounged through garbage to keep from starving. Today’s “poor” by government standards are often overweight representatives of multi-generational dependence, single-parent families and state-sanctioned indolence. The American public got an excellent snapshot of modern poverty when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. When the flood waters cleared the “poor” took to the streets in a stampede of obesity looking for the nearest McDonald’s. Because they had been indoctrinated for decades to regard government benefits as “manna from heaven”, they ignored warnings to evacuate or take steps to provide for their own survival. After the disaster many simply relocated to other states to continue collecting benefits having learned nothing about personal responsibility. Poverty in America does not fit the classic definition used by the rest of the world where victims are upwardly mobile looking for ways to improve their circumstances. It is government-sanctioned pseudo-poverty that propagates itself for the perpetuation of the massive beaurocracies that service it.

Ummmm yeah. The boomers came of age during the post world war II 'golden age' of american economic growth. American GDP and productivity grew and increased the size of the middle class, home sales increased dramatically and there was a boom in the production and consumption of consumer goods. Were their pockets of devastating poverty in the US? Of course but the boomer generation as whole did not experience this. That was the whole point of Johnson's great society. The last American generation to experience poverty at the same level of those in parts of the developing world today would be those that came of age during the 1930's.





Profit added to this post, 14 minutes and 7 seconds later...

When the flood waters cleared the “poor” took to the streets in a stampede of obesity looking for the nearest McDonald’s. Because they had been indoctrinated for decades to regard government benefits as “manna from heaven”, they ignored warnings to evacuate or take steps to provide for their own survival. After the disaster many simply relocated to other states to continue collecting benefits having learned nothing about personal responsibility.

First of all the mandatory evacuation order for New Orleans was issued about 23 hours before Katrina made landfall. Some of the people who stayed in the city did so because they did not have access to transportation. They were also under the impression, after having been told for years by the local/state/fed gov't and the civil engineers, that the levees would hold. After the storm passed they were trapped in a flooded city with no clean water and scare food supplies. How dare people trapped in a natural disaster area demand assistance from their government.

[Ray9]

Well, the "New World Order" is well on its way right under the noses of the free world and no one is batting an eyelash. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to an individual who so far has done nothing but make speeches and has had virtually no effect on the world stage. Why on Earth would the Nobel Peace Priize committee award the prize to Barack Obama, an ineffectual president of the United states who today presides over an actual unemployment rate of 17 percent? The answer of course is that he fits right into the master plan of the "New World Order", the thrust of which is to dismantle the economy of the United States and bring it into social parity with globalism.

The Nobel Peace Prize is administered by the Norwegian Government. The tiny country of Norway, borderd by Sweden, Finland and Russia has a population roughly the size of the state of Colorado and a standing military of less than 85,000 personel. In the 1970's large oil reserves were discovered in Norway and it surely would have been annexed by the Soviet Union had it not been for the United States which bankrupted the former superpower.

It's astounding that Americans cannot see what's happening. The award of the prize is nothing more than brazen influence peddling for the purpose of sapping the vitality of the last truly free country in the free world. The intellectuals and elites who sit on the board of the Nobel Prize have an agenda that wants to steer the United states into a socialist mindset which will quickly impoverish the majority of the population and ultimately wipe out the middle class. Giving Obama the prize is like handing an olympic runner a trophy before the race has even started because the officials just like the way he looks.


The US is now led by an individual who embraces all of the goals of the new world order and he has the benefit of a naive, obedient and unquestioning generation of sheep who willingly march to their own destruction.

[Night Runner]

Since we are all so clearly deluded and you are the only person who sees this global conspiracy against liberty, puppies and the American way, wouldn't your time be more effectively spent taking matters in your hands, rather than posting on an online message board? There is no time to waste, Ray9 - you have a world to save! :)

[Synamon]

Well, the "New World Order" is well on its way right under the noses of the free world and no one is batting an eyelash. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to an individual who so far has done nothing but make speeches and has had virtually no effect on the world stage. Why on Earth would the Nobel Peace Priize committee award the prize to Barack Obama, an ineffectual president of the United states who today presides over an actual unemployment rate of 17 percent? The answer of course is that he fits right into the master plan of the "New World Order", the thrust of which is to dismantle the economy of the United States and bring it into social parity with globalism.

The Nobel Peace Prize is administered by the Norwegian Government. The tiny country of Norway, borderd by Sweden, Finland and Russia has a population roughly the size of the state of Colorado and a standing military of less than 85,000 personel. In the 1970's large oil reserves were discovered in Norway and it surely would have been annexed by the Soviet Union had it not been for the United States which bankrupted the former superpower.

It's astounding that Americans cannot see what's happening. The award of the prize is nothing more than brazen influence peddling for the purpose of sapping the vitality of the last truly free country in the free world. The intellectuals and elites who sit on the board of the Nobel Prize have an agenda that wants to steer the United states into a socialist mindset which will quickly impoverish the majority of the population and ultimately wipe out the middle class. Giving Obama the prize is like handing an olympic runner a trophy before the race has even started because the officials just like the way he looks.


The US is now led by an individual who embraces all of the goals of the new world order and he has the benefit of a naive, obedient and unquestioning generation of sheep who willingly march to their own destruction.

*yawn*

What does the unemployment rate in the US have to do with the Nobel Peace Prize? Even better, what does an anti-Obama rant have to do with anything?

The United States can blow the fuck out of the rest of the world so this "New World Order" you keep going on about has nothing to do with the rest of the world influencing the US. The rest of the world doesn't have a secret agenda to "socialize" the United States. Really.

What you are upset about is the fact that other Americans want to live in the 21st century and you want to turn back time and go back to 1950's values. Too bad, you can't stop time so start moving forward or get out of the way.

[Stickman]

It's astounding that Americans cannot see what's happening. The award of the prize is nothing more than brazen influence peddling for the purpose of sapping the vitality of the last truly free country in the free world.

It's a Nobel peace prize, not a cold shower. If this is the best the NWO has got than I really don't think they're of any threat.

The democrats have a super-majority in all three houses of government and they can't pass health-care reform that the majority of Americans support because they're too busy trying to build 'consent'. If there really was a conspiracy, the democrats would have locked their opposition out of the house like the republicans did when the tables turned and steamrolled their agenda by now.

The very fact that the democrats are still wasting time talking to republicans when they don't need to is proof that they have no intention of enacting a socialist new world order.

[Ray9]

The very fact that the democrats are still wasting time talking to republicans when they don't need to is proof that they have no intention of enacting a socialist new world order.

They don't have the votes.

[Stickman]

They don't have the votes.

That's my point. If Obama (and by extension the democrats) had some kind of agenda than they wouldn't be interested in debate with each other; they'd have a uniform policy front like the republicans did in 2001-2006.

[Profit]

Well, the "New World Order" is well on its way right under the noses of the free world and no one is batting an eyelash. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to an individual who so far has done nothing but make speeches and has had virtually no effect on the world stage. Why on Earth would the Nobel Peace Priize committee award the prize to Barack Obama, an ineffectual president of the United states who today presides over an actual unemployment rate of 17 percent? The answer of course is that he fits right into the master plan of the "New World Order", the thrust of which is to dismantle the economy of the United States and bring it into social parity with globalism.

The Nobel Peace Prize is administered by the Norwegian Government. The tiny country of Norway, borderd by Sweden, Finland and Russia has a population roughly the size of the state of Colorado and a standing military of less than 85,000 personel. In the 1970's large oil reserves were discovered in Norway and it surely would have been annexed by the Soviet Union had it not been for the United States which bankrupted the former superpower.

It's astounding that Americans cannot see what's happening. The award of the prize is nothing more than brazen influence peddling for the purpose of sapping the vitality of the last truly free country in the free world. The intellectuals and elites who sit on the board of the Nobel Prize have an agenda that wants to steer the United states into a socialist mindset which will quickly impoverish the majority of the population and ultimately wipe out the middle class. Giving Obama the prize is like handing an olympic runner a trophy before the race has even started because the officials just like the way he looks.


The US is now led by an individual who embraces all of the goals of the new world order and he has the benefit of a naive, obedient and unquestioning generation of sheep who willingly march to their own destruction.

Wow Ray, the only thing missing is come creepy theme music and a website address where I can buy your book. Do you know where I can get one of those tin foil hats to protect myself from the government's microwave radiation mind control devices?

[IrishGuy]

I fail to see the logic behind your statements. Obama laid out a policy and a set of goals that he wants to achieve. I get the impression that you believe that these policies of his are "socialist." Thus, if his policies are already "socialist" how is the Nobel going to influence him to pursue a policy of "socialism." You seem to think that our government is homogeneous. The amount of policy debate and infighting within the government indicates otherwise.

[RBM]

The very fact that the democrats are still wasting time talking to republicans when they don't need to is proof that they have no intention of enacting a socialist new world order.

I think that framing is totally erroneous, of course it is consistent when replying to Ray9, cause that's his world view frame.

The Dems aren't wasting time talking to the GOP, they are 'wasting' time talking to the lobbyists:

Lobbyists Fight Efforts to Save on Health Care (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This article should go in the health care thread but it works here too, cause it (money) is common to the NWO dialog, also. The NWO concept has more futuristic planning involved and at a more complex level (global) on how to make money than the health care debate in the US Congress. The NWO will provide NEW 'opportunities'.

[Stickman]

The Dems aren't wasting time talking to the GOP, they are 'wasting' time talking to the lobbyists

Now now, no one said they can't waste time with two things at once.

[Ray9]

Just before Monday Night football Obama came on and started hawking "Spanish Heritage Month" or something like that. Then one of the officials in the game called out a penalty in spanish. This is more than a little strange. First of all we speak English here and have since Plymouth rock. What are they trying to prepare us for? Why not Jewish Heritage Month? Then the official could call out the penalty in Yiddish. Does no one else find this odd? Why are the signs in Walmart in Spanish as well as English? This has been going on for a very long time. I remember back in the 80's seeing semi trucks go by with somos todos hermanas y hermanos painted on them. What are the elites getting ready to cram down our throats?

[Holiman]

Ray9 I dont know if you have ever been outside of the US before so im gonna tell you something I noticed early on. Most countries have some signs near tourist areas and places tourists might go in english many have them all over. Most every country I have been to see's learning english as a mark of pride and enjoy showing you what they know. Why is the US the only country to see being biligual as a sign of the 'end times'.

This has been bothering me forever, this country really seem's to pride itself on stupidity and your little comments are leading the way. The US has been honoring the heritage and our diversity in almost every city for a very long time. Also if you had ever gone to miami you might understand why they might wish to celebrate their culture you know like the Irish do on St. patties every year. The germans during octoberfest. I could go on but I doubt those whom hate prejudicially would care.

[Profit]

Just before Monday Night football Obama came on and started hawking "Spanish Heritage Month" or something like that. Then one of the officials in the game called out a penalty in spanish. This is more than a little strange. First of all we speak English here and have since Plymouth rock. What are they trying to prepare us for? Why not Jewish Heritage Month? Then the official could call out the penalty in Yiddish. Does no one else find this odd? Why are the signs in Walmart in Spanish as well as English? This has been going on for a very long time. I remember back in the 80's seeing semi trucks go by with somos todos hermanas y hermanos painted on them. What are the elites getting ready to cram down our throats?

"We didn't land on Plymouth rock, Plymouth rock landed on us"
Gotta love that quote.

I was watching the game last night and laughed a little to myself because I knew the one two punch of Obama and a call being made in Spanish would rile a few feathers. After engineering a war and stealing 2/3 of Mexico's territory the least we can do is have a Spanish heritage month. Do you get this worked up over black history month as well?

[firebee]

What are they trying to prepare us for?

The chips that are going to be implanted in our heads give orders only in Spanish. Hence, it is in our best interest to become fluent in Spanish lest we be driven mad by foreign-language subconscious directives from our alien masters. Amigo.

Or it could be that Wal-Mart finds it useful to have signs that its customers can read. But that's crazy talk, I'm sure.

[Stickman]

Oh god, my parents are immigrants. I'm so sorry you white people have to hear them talk in their native tongue. I tried to make them stop but they wouldn't keep talking about how it would make America more socialist.

[Profit]

This is more than a little strange. First of all we speak English here and have since Plymouth rock.

You forgot the fact that millions of Germans, Dutch, Scotch-Irish (I know they speak English but with a funny accent), and Africans also immigrated (obviously the Africans didn't have a choice) to Colonial British America. None of these groups spoke English when they first got off the boat. Some even established isolated communities along the colonial frontier where they retained their native language and cultures for some time. Also don't forget the millions of Native American inhabiting the land to begin with.....they didn't speak english either.





Profit added to this post, 7 minutes and 56 seconds later...



Or it could be that Wal-Mart finds it useful to have signs that its customers can read. But that's crazy talk, I'm sure.

Or does it mean that Sam Walton had a secret plan to destroy American society? First you create the largest retailer in the country. Once you have a store in every town you slowly start changing all the signs and ads to Spanish and before people know it they are speaking Spanish and the American way of life has been destroyed.

[IrishGuy]

Just about every other industrialized country on the planet has bilingual signs. God forbid companies try to expand their markets by advertising across multiple languages. Honoring Spanish Heritage Month at a football game represents a great opportunity for Obama and the NFL to reach out to the Spanish audience. It's time we dusted off the welcome mat and put it back out on the porch where it belongs...

[Night Runner]

Just before Monday Night football Obama came on and started hawking "Spanish Heritage Month" or something like that. Then one of the officials in the game called out a penalty in spanish. This is more than a little strange. First of all we speak English here and have since Plymouth rock. What are they trying to prepare us for? Why not Jewish Heritage Month? Then the official could call out the penalty in Yiddish. Does no one else find this odd? Why are the signs in Walmart in Spanish as well as English? This has been going on for a very long time. I remember back in the 80's seeing semi trucks go by with somos todos hermanas y hermanos painted on them. What are the elites getting ready to cram down our throats?

I shall refer you to the post #174, which you appear to have ignored. With your uncanny powers of deduction and your unique ability to discover the New World Order's plots, why aren't you out there saving the world? It's easy to talk the talk (especially on an online message board), but can you walk the walk? Please post specific plans of action - both short- and long-term.

[Ray9]

The majority of the main stream media in America today has degenerated into something very much like a propaganda ministry for the current White House administration. This disturbing fact is highlighted by the brazen behavior of the President and his minions as they attack Fox News for having the journalistic courage and professionalism to question policies and investigate radical connections of some cabinet members. The unabashed boosterism and journalistic incompetence of NBC,CBS,ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post and many others should of grave concern to the public because rather than objectively inform citizens, these media have become little more than servile, flattering cheerleaders of the status quo.

Fox News viewership is growing by leaps and bounds because it is the only national news organization that honestly reports news. The White house is sending a message to all media that if they do not "play ball" they too will be attacked, slandered and discredited. This is dangerous in a free society because news organization are the watchdogs who guard our liberties.

The unsettling reality is that millions of Americans get all their news from the likes of Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman who are really nothing more than PR men for the left so they will never ask tough questions. Even though they have dismal ratings they still reach and influence many. Their intellectually challenged viewers are oblivious to the dangers of stifling a free press as the White House is attempting.

[Stickman]

To be fair to Ray9, MSNBC and CNN are terrible channels but than again calling FOX 'honest reporting' is plain delusional to be quite honest.

[Ray9]

To be fair to Ray9, MSNBC and CNN are terrible channels but than again calling FOX 'honest reporting' is plain delusional to be quite honest.

Can you provide examples of dishonest reporting?

[Holiman]

Can you provide examples of dishonest reporting?



It is way past time you stopped making statements and expecting us to prove you wrong.

This "news media bias" is your argument prove how theyre PR groups for the white house and that the white house is doing something wrong against fox.

[Stickman]

Can you provide examples of dishonest reporting?

It is way past time you stopped making statements and expecting us to prove you wrong.

This "news media bias" is your argument prove how theyre PR groups for the white house and that the white house is doing something wrong against fox.

I was going to answer Ray's question but to be quite honest, Holiman is right. Why should I go through the effort when you're just going to ignore it and post another insane rant without addressing anything other people say?

I can post evidence that Fox actively and consistently distorts facts in order to further the agenda of the Republican party, but if I do you have to promise you'll never watch Fox news again. Watch something else, go build a tree-house or do something worthwhile, just never watch Fox news again.

Otherwise why should I make the effort if you're just going to put on the blinders against everything you don't want to hear? If you want to live in denial, go post in freerepublic.com

[Ray9]

The White House has enjoyed the adoration of the left dominated media for so long that it regards anything other than obedient rump-swabbing as yellow journalism. Large portions of the American public have become so used to the left wing media genuflecting to Obama that they have forgotten what real news reporting is all about which is asking tough questions. Without talk radio and Fox news tough questions would be a rare event indeed. It's little wonder that the White House is on the attack against Fox News because some of the questions being asked and some of the issues being raised are shedding light in areas the White House does not want illuminated.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




It's not unreasonable to ask Stickman and Holiman to pony up up some evidence of dishonest reporting. They choose to focus on me instead and cop out. I'd like to see some real evidence of blatantly dishonest reporting a' la Dan Rather. I'm not interested in statements like "consistently distorts facts". I'm looking for specific evidence of dishonest reporting.

[Profit]

The White House has enjoyed the adoration of the left dominated media for so long that it regards anything other than obedient rump-swabbing as yellow journalism. Large portions of the American public have become so used to the left wing media genuflecting to Obama that they have forgotten what real news reporting is all about which is asking tough questions. Without talk radio and Fox news tough questions would be a rare event indeed. It's little wonder that the White House is on the attack against Fox News because some of the questions being asked and some of the issues being raised are shedding light in areas the White House does not want illuminated.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




It's not unreasonable to ask Stickman and Holiman to pony up up some evidence of dishonest reporting. They choose to focus on me instead and cop out. I'd like to see some real evidence of blatantly dishonest reporting a' la Dan Rather. I'm not interested in statements like "consistently distorts facts". I'm looking for specific evidence of dishonest reporting.

Ok, your two links....one is to the Australian, a newspaper owned by Rubert Murdoch, the other, Newsbusters, is run by the Media Research Center that is owned by Brent Bozell.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not exactly unbiased news there Ray. Look if you want to argue that news outlets like MSNBC or CNN are guilty of liberal bias fine, but don't hold up Fox News as a pristine example of unbiased reporting.

From Wikipedia.

"Fox News executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of their daily reporting. In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily memos issued by Fox News' Vice President of News, John Moody. In the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, former Fox News employees are interviewed to better understand the inner workings of Fox News. In memos from the documentary, Moody instructs employees on the approach to be taken on particular stories. Critics of Fox News claim that the instructions on many of the memos indicate a conservative bias. The Washington Post quoted Larry Johnson, a former part-time Fox News commentator, describing the Moody memos as "talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray."[53]
Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."[54][55]
Photocopied memos from Fox News executive John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[56] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which included Moody quotes such as, "The soldiers [seen on FOX in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation."
Two days after the 2006 election, The Huffington Post reported they had acquired a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "... let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchor Martha McCallum, went on-air on the program The Live Desk with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 Congressional election.[57][58]"

"On the July 2, 2008 edition of Fox and Friends, co-hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy aired photos of New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe that had been crudely doctored, apparently in order to portray the journalists unflatteringly.[66] This occurred during a discussion of a piece in the June 28 edition of The New York Times, which pointed out what Steinberg called "ominous trends" in Fox News' ratings.[67]
According to Media Matters, the photos depict New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg with yellowed teeth, "his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further". The other image, of Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe, had similar yellow teeth, as well as "dark circles ... under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back".[68]
During the discussion, Doocy called the Times report, written by Steinberg, a "hit piece" ordered up by Reddicliffe.[67] The broadcast then showed an image of Steinberg's face superimposed over a picture of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over the man holding the poodle's leash.[67]
Times culture editor Sam Sifton called the Fox photo work "disgusting," and the criticism of the paper's reporting a "specious and meritless claim" while denying that it was a "hit piece".[67]"

"The network has also drawn repeated criticism for falsely or poorly identifying guests on political programs. On the January 6, 2006 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, two former Congressmen were brought on to discuss the "formula for success for the Democratic Party to win in 2006." One, Jimmy Hayes, was identified in a caption as a Democrat. He had become a Republican in 1995. The other, George Nethercutt Jr., was not identified by party but is also a Republican.[117] Also, during an edition of The O'Reilly Factor, congressman Mark Foley, a Republican in trouble for writing sexually suggestive e-mails and instant messages to underage congressional pages, was misidentified as a Democrat in the onscreen text."

"On October 1, 2004, Fox News Channel political correspondent Carl Cameron posted a news article on the network's website which apparently contained fabricated quotations attributed to Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign. The article -- titled "Trail Tales" -- falsely quoted Kerry as claiming to do manicures and being a "metrosexual" (a term referring to a man who is effeminate in appearance). Cameron also delivered a report on the September 30, 2004 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume covering the presidential debates, falsely claiming that Kerry received a "pre-debate manicure." Fox News later retracted the story, saying, "This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl regrets it.... It was a poor attempt at humor."

[Stickman]

Ok, you don't deserve it, but I'll bite.

The thing about CNN and MSNBC is that while they may give a biased opinion or emphasize certain facts over others to favor their POV there's a line they don't cross that FOX news will.

Actively lying or changing inconvenient facts

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What do all these people have in common? These are all republicans who for some reason or another have been disgraced in the public eye; so instead on reporting on it honestly they decide to score some points by saying they're disgraced democrats.

You railed against Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, but those guys are commentators who give their opinions. Sure, they like Obama and they don't hide it, but they won't lie for him; the worst they'll do is omit or gloss over things that don't fit into their world view, which is something we're all guilty of.

Promoting, sponsoring, organizing and participating in protests

Rousing a crowd (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Giving a speech (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Free commercials and promotion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

It's one thing for a news network to report what's going on and give an opinion or give a generous estimate to the numbers but it's another to start an event, pay money for the promotion of the event, and give free publicity to your brainwashed, yes brainwashed, crowd.

And why exactly are you mad that the white house is at 'war' with Fox news? Glenn beck called Obama a racist ages ago. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) If I had an entire news station dedicated to attacking my character without any justification (exactly what has Obama done that made him a racist?) and I had the nuclear launch codes then you'd be damn sure that I'd have more than harsh words.

[Ray9]

The point I'm making is that fifty percent of the American People are represented by all of the liberal media and the other fifty percent are represented only by Fox News and talk radio. Without Fox News there would be no accurate and honest reporting of the news period because then everyone would be in the tank. There is no absolutely unbaised political entity anywhere in the world and this is especially true of Wikipedia.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Stickman]

The point I'm making is that fifty percent of the American People are represented by all of the liberal media and the other fifty percent are represented only by Fox News and talk radio.

I distinctly remember that the 'liberal media' lampooned Clinton during the laughably irrelevant Leweinsky affair and supported Bush when he wanted to go into Iraq when it was obvious he was lying. Liberals don't have a 'liberal media' equivalent to Fox other than a few independent blogs and maybe a few comedy shows.

Without Fox News there would be no accurate and honest reporting of the news period because then everyone would be in the tank.

See, it's the fact that you can still say this after being faced with pure evidence that this isn't true is why I never really wanted to bother. I've already shown that Fox news is the only organization that purposely fudges basic facts.

I'm sorry to say this, but you're brainwashed.

[firebee]

Without Fox News there would be no accurate and honest reporting of the news period because then everyone would be in the tank.

Sentence N.


There is no absolutely unbaised political entity anywhere in the world and this is especially true of Wikipedia.

Sentence N+1.

Out of respect for those of us who have enough working memory to successfully dial a phone, could you allow a little bit of time to ensue before you contradict yourself?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

While you're at it, check out what Conservapedia has to say about examples of bias in the Bible. They're working on rewriting it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to remove the bits the nasty liberals added to the King James Version. Evidently it is necessary, for instance, to substitute "Liberal" for "Pharisee" in order for the text in question to be ideologically correct.

Probably the thing about motes and logs is also "problematic".

[Ray9]

Ok, you don't deserve it, but I'll bite.

The thing about CNN and MSNBC is that while they may give a biased opinion or emphasize certain facts over others to favor their POV there's a line they don't cross that FOX news will.

Actively lying or changing inconvenient facts

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What do all these people have in common? These are all republicans who for some reason or another have been disgraced in the public eye; so instead on reporting on it honestly they decide to score some points by saying they're disgraced democrats.

You railed against Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, but those guys are commentators who give their opinions. Sure, they like Obama and they don't hide it, but they won't lie for him; the worst they'll do is omit or gloss over things that don't fit into their world view, which is something we're all guilty of.

Promoting, sponsoring, organizing and participating in protests

Rousing a crowd (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Giving a speech (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Free commercials and promotion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

It's one thing for a news network to report what's going on and give an opinion or give a generous estimate to the numbers but it's another to start an event, pay money for the promotion of the event, and give free publicity to your brainwashed, yes brainwashed, crowd.

And why exactly are you mad that the white house is at 'war' with Fox news? Glenn beck called Obama a racist ages ago. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) If I had an entire news station dedicated to attacking my character without any justification (exactly what has Obama done that made him a racist?) and I had the nuclear launch codes then you'd be damn sure that I'd have more than harsh words.



That's absurd. Obviously someone is paid to scour Fox News for mistakes in labeling that all networks make. You're the one who appears to be brainwashed if you take any of this seriously. Don't make me laugh.


Real dishonesty:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. esponds.html

[Holiman]

Well you have really opened my eyes here, how stupid of the people arguing about race when the issue was that people were bringing guns to town hall meetings. This article is stupid and the woman on MSN was moronic for even attempting to connect the dots. I dont care who brings them its STUPID!

But since Stickman already had conceded that MSN often glosses over or omits facts to further a biased POV. Which was exactly the fact of the link and the entire argument, but will you admit that people bringing guns to town hall meetings or Obama rallies is scary as hell ?

[Stickman]

That's absurd. Obviously someone is paid to scour Fox News for mistakes in labeling that all networks make.

If Fox did it once, it might have made a mistake, but they did it 4 times to disgraced republicans and purposely mislabeled them as democrats. It was intentional. Also, a lot of people hate fox, and with good reason, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone was paid to look for examples of Fox's dishonesty. That doesn't make their findings less true. If I hired a detective to find evidence of a crime, a valid defense in court would not be "well, he was paid money to find that evidence, so I must be innocent".

You're the one who appears to be brainwashed if you take any of this seriously. Don't make me laugh.

Ask yourself this question: "Why are you inventing excuses on behalf of Fox News?"

Real dishonesty:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. esponds.html

Yeah, MSNBC and CNN is crap, I've never said otherwise. The fact that these news networks are terrible doesn't grant a free pass to Fox News.

[Nomadofthehills]

I like being a generation Yer. I can break baby boomer's hips.