Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

For some time, I have been asking myself, "Where did the Republican party go wrong?" When did my party of small government and fiscal responsibility become the big government party of corporate greed and national debt? It was when the Baby Boomers took over.

Yes, the Boomers. The promiscuous "free love and do drugs" Boomers who epitomized hedonism in their early years. Woodstock, fornication, and Haight-Ahsbury defined them--all of them gluttons of the flesh, consuming everything pleasurable with no thought to moral consequence. And if that lifestyle had continued, the Boomers would have done us all a favor and died young, saving our country from the crushing weight of Medicare and Social Security.

But no, the Boomers grew up. They, like every college liberal, stepped out of their marijuana-induced haze of freedom and "**** the consequences" mindset, and they started working for a living. They put away their burning bras and LSD, and they became gainfully employed. And as they worked, they made money. As they made money, they embraced consumerism. And still at this time, America was mighty, and they gobbled up everything that capitalism offered to them. They delighted in their own decadence. But that wasn't enough for them. Nothing has ever been enough for the "Me" generation, nothing except for more, more, more.

Because then the 1980s hit, and Ronald Reagan became president. The Boomers at this time "got religion," so to speak. They condemned sin and lectured about abstinence, all the while their loose thighs tingled with the remembrance of sexual encounters past. Even in the Nixon years, they turned against the drugs they so happily imbibed in their youth, but Reagan was the height of Boomer self-indulgence. Reagan was the shining beacon of moral decay in America, when greed became good, when "**** y'all, I got mine" became the slogan of the Republican party.

And what did Reagan do as part of the Boomer legacy? He cut their taxes. He lied to us, told us that the rich would give us jobs if we gave them more money. He explained in that cheerful, disarming, charismatic way that he had about him--he explained that rugged individualism was the key to success in America. And the Boomers, the generation that did not know want, the generation that had grown up in an idyllic America, ate that shit right up. And how did they repay America for lowering their taxes? They shipped jobs overseas to see their stocks go up a point. They laid off thousands of workers to see a 2% profit increase. They took a giant, steaming dump all over America in the name of greed.

And what happened? Christianity became swallowed up by the Republican party and perverted so that it appealed to the Boomer generation. Instead of railing against greed and demanding that we provide for the poor, Christianity became twisted. It turned from a religion of peace and charity to a religion defined as pro-life and anti-sex. As long as a politician talked about "traditional values," the Boomer's warped, hypocritical Christian morals signed on. Military action in the Middle East? The destruction of working class America? The sanctioning of avarice? Well, as long as they were pro-life, it didn't matter. At least not to the Boomers.

And this is where things in America took a turn for the worse. The Republican party, once a party of relatively moderate, sane persons, took a turn to the right to appeal to the Boomer audience. Embracing greed and self-righteous piety, they welcomed the Boomers into their ranks. Now the party has borne the fruits of its labor: an aging populace known for their piggish, reactionary elements who shriek at the top of their lungs that the notion of anything remotely progressive is sinful or socialism.

And now what is left of the Republican party? Nothing resembling humanity. We have the liars and politicians assuring us that we need to give tax breaks to the rich so they'll give us jobs, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile. We have the religious authoritarians telling us that drugs are a sin and we need to keep them illegal, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile. We have the neoconservatives telling us that we need to send more of our soldiers to their deaths in the Middle East, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile.

And why shouldn't the Boomers agree? They're the wealthy business owners now, so they want tax breaks. They're done with drugs, so they don't mind if a new age of prohibition if upon us. They aren't in the military, so they don't care if our men and women die. In fact, as long as something doesn't affect the most selfish, self-indulgent generation in American history, they don't give a ****. Why else would they rail against "socialism" and "big government" while leeching off of Medicare and Social Security? Because they're worthless and a cancer on society.

And this is why the Republican party is bad. As long as the Boomers cast their blighted shadow on America, the party of small government and fiscal responsibility will remain the party of corporate greed and regressive social mores. The only hope for the party is for young, educated people to push aside the bloated carcass of the Boomer heritance and retake the Republican standard from the wretched grasp of the worst generation.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
At last, I finally see. Baby Boomers are everything wrong with society.

took you long enough



actually, I agree in principle with this

Doesn't that make it their parent's fault? Shouldn't their parents have beat them more, or taught them the difference between right and wrong?

I think I heard Ben or Jerry, of Ben&Jerry's fame, or the guys who organized Woodstock say pretty much the same thing about their own generation.

I wouldn't take it personally, though. They didn't just screw up the Republican Party; they screwed up a lot of the American society. Some of it they screwed up after they got religion and stopped smoking pot. You make it sounds as though they started screwing everything up because they became responsible, greedy adults. But, there was nothing wrong with a lot of the ideas they had before they put down the peace pipe; gay rights, womens rights, gender equality, etc. It just seems as though they got really cranky after they had to get jobs. They couldn't handle smoking the odd joint AND growing up.

Edit: Oh, and now that you've identified the problem, how do you intend to take your party back from the corporatists the Boomers sold it to?

Hunter S talks about it, even in the Fear and Loathing movie while he is free-basing, the flower generation that gave up on peace and love for the 9-5 and SUVs.

The whole thing was doomed from the beginning. The "hippies" set up incredibly unrealistic ideas about how society could be reformed. Look at things like women's rights and the civil rights movement:

Women were already in universities, already had jobs. Sure, it wasn't equal, but they were already immancipated in most of the relevant ways because of their access to the market. Their economic power made people listen to them. Same with civil rights, if minorities weren't already in a position to leverage something against society (the strikes in Birmingham for instance), there would have been no need to give them equality.

I'm not trying to say things were great for either group, but hippies and the whole "peace and love" movement gets a lot more credit for things that they simply happened to be around at the same time as. Because of this, they got jaded when things like Altamont happened, and they realized that "freedom and love" weren't really nuanced ideas of social organization.

blah, press me and I'll rant about the BS rave scene and all that...

Originally posted by inimalist
blah, press me and I'll rant about the BS rave scene and all that...

press, press.

I spent a lot of time around that scene. Most of my stories begin with being hit on by some 20 year old sucking a pacifier and dangling glow sticks in front of me, and by the end of the night I was stepping over them to wash my hands after a piss because they were passed out on the bathroom floor.

Originally posted by skekUng
press, press.

I spent a lot of time around that scene. Most of my stories begin with being hit on by some 20 year old sucking a pacifier and dangling glow sticks in front of me, and by the end of the night I was stepping over them to wash my hands after a piss because they were passed out on the bathroom floor.

lol, ya, that almost certainly was me you were stepping over at one point. On the flip side, my finger dexterity is stupid-amazing. I also probably got carpal tunnel syndrome

I'll try to keep it in relation to the thread though...

So like, raves were full of drugged up people who professed nothing but peace and love for eachother. Lots of people really thought it was a movement, like something that was going to change the world. The term PLUR was thrown around, as if the people who got high and felt the togetherness that MDMA brings were really peaceful, loving, united and respectful, but in the end, it was a scene that was just as clique-y as all the others.

There is no real substance to these counter-culture movements, and when the drugs ware off, we are all still these lonely people looking for social acceptance. There was no real social or political organization behind the movement, which a lot of people thought there would be.

So, take the festival Om for instance. It was a big rave party that had a very communal atmosphere. People would contribute by cooking or cleaning up, it was all volunteer, etc. However, about 7-8 years ago, as I was planning to attend for the first time, they sent out batch emails to most of the people in the Toronto scene.

Essentially, the message was, if you aren't a communist, you aren't welcome. The ideals of PLUR weren't even able to make a successful 3 day event, let alone organize society. Needless to say, I've never attended Om, and wouldn't go if they begged me. Friends of mine who have gone, talk about how it is NOT an accepting place where people can be individuals. It is vegan, period. If you were to bring a butane grill and cook some burgers, some ******* is going to give you shit. People do everything they can to "out-hippie" the next guy, so one guy has solar panels, the next will brag about how he shits in a bag to make organic methane or whatever.

Scenes like this kill diversity. Ok, so maybe Om is more of a hippie/rave thing, but even at events like WEMF (world electronic music festival) or even small raves, the whole social atmosphere revolved around who could be more "rave". God, I used to essentially have costumes I would wear: visor, white gloves, baggy BAGGY pants.

imho, this is the exact same as the boomers. After the drugs wear off, you realize that the world is not only the same way as it was before, but that you really don't have any ability to change it. You get entirely jaded with the whole concept that, initially, you thought was going to be a driving force for change. ****, like, ive had people tell me why MDMA shouldn't be legal, as they are taking pills.

These things are the epitomy of self-indulgance, which is great, I'm all for that, but to many people, they get too caught up in the feeling. They don't understand that just "loving one-another" really is a stupidly niave way to try and view political change.

shit, I feel like I'm all over the place with this, so I will stop before it is any more convoluted...

Everything good in my community is leftover from the hippie movement. I see the positive impacts of it every day.

Including the dope?

na, weed is WAY better now.

its the acid that sucks these days

Yes, it is excellent. Lots of casual users, very few abusers.

How does acid suck these days? LSD is LSD (unless it was something else and falsely advertised).

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, it is excellent. Lots of casual users, very few abusers.

How does acid suck these days? LSD is LSD (unless it was something else and falsely advertised).

I guess I wasn't around in the 60s, so I'm only going through what I've learned through classes and talking with people

but back in the day, a "hit" had something like 4-10x the dose of LSD on it, and the purity of the LSD itself was higher.

I guess you are right though, nothing has changed about the quality of "LSD", just the hits you find are of a much lower potency.

In the 60s, a "hit" would be 250-400ug. What are you getting now for average amount?

I can imagine the purity was better, with it coming from professional or professionally managed illicit producers. But really all that changes, is that you might have to take more. It shouldn't affect the quality of the experience at all.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In the 60s, a "hit" would be 250-400ug. What are you getting now for average amount?

I can imagine the purity was better, with it coming from professional or professionally managed illicit producers. But really all that changes, is that you might have to take more. It shouldn't affect the quality of the experience at all.

god, I have no idea off the top of my head...

People have told me its the difference between one drop of liquid on a square today and 4 in the past, but none of these people were alive in the 60s...

I could go digging through Erowid or my text books, but I don't know the numbers.

but no, you are totally right, its not like pot, where the actual DNA of the plant has changed a huge amount in 50 years (along with the methods of growing it).

I wonder how hard organic chemistry is...

Originally posted by inimalist
but no, you are totally right, its not like pot, where the actual DNA of the plant has changed a huge amount in 50 years (along with the methods of growing it).

Selective breeding?

Originally posted by inimalist
I wonder how hard organic chemistry is...

Ever seen the Kreb cycle?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg

My bio teacher says memorizing that is first late undergrad work.

Originally posted by inimalist
god, I have no idea off the top of my head...

People have told me its the difference between one drop of liquid on a square today and 4 in the past, but none of these people were alive in the 60s...

I could go digging through Erowid or my text books, but I don't know the numbers.

but no, you are totally right, its not like pot, where the actual DNA of the plant has changed a huge amount in 50 years (along with the methods of growing it).

I wonder how hard organic chemistry is...
I was told that a 2nd year biochem student could reasonably make LSD... however, I was also told by others that it would require grad student level knowledge. net summary: I have no idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever seen the Kreb cycle?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg

My bio teacher says memorizing that is first late undergrad work.
I learned an abbreviated version of that in the equivalent of first year lab bio; I would imagine that the full version would be pretty basic to a biochem major.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I learned an abbreviated version of that in the equivalent of first year lab bio; I would imagine that the full version would be pretty basic to a biochem major.

We just had to learn "and then you get two ATP". You're probably right about is being basic work but it's wonderfully intimidating to look at.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess you are right though, nothing has changed about the quality of "LSD", just the hits you find are of a much lower potency.

I guess that was people seeing their friend's fried on the drug and calling for quality controls. Can't sell to dead customers.

Free market economy?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Everything good in my community is leftover from the hippie movement.

I assume you aren't talking about the 49th ward, so to which 'community' are you referring? What in that community is left from those days?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Selective breeding?

and then some

though, the ultimate dream would be genetic work, which I think some people in the netherlands are trying to do

there have been some recent peer-review papers about how to grow high quality weed, or how to use spectroscipy to determine THC content, so it might just be a matter of time before science comes up with new superweed.

or, there is always my bioterrorism idea: splice THC into highly invasive dandilions, then demand marijuana be made legal or the seeds will be relaeased

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever seen the Kreb cycle?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg

no...

pfft, I've seen more complex though

(nobody in their right mind tries to memorize neuro-connective models though)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My bio teacher says memorizing that is first late undergrad work.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I was told that a 2nd year biochem student could reasonably make LSD... however, I was also told by others that it would require grad student level knowledge. net summary: I have no idea.

I tried to grow phalaris grass once to synthesize DMT, it didn't work (it turns out my thumbs aren't even close to green, and I literally cannot grow a grass), but the most difficult part of the process was finding good solvents and especially finding good equipment.

I can't imagine there are any extremely hard steps in making LSD (its sensitivity to light and temperature aside) that would require a PHD or anything. The hardest part would probably be setting up a decent lab to do the work in. The equipment and chemicals needed would likely be very expensive, if even available on the open market.

Originally posted by skekUng
I guess that was people seeing their friend's fried on the drug and calling for quality controls. Can't sell to dead customers.

wut?

LSD is a VERY beningn substance. It can have psychological impacts on a person, but it would be pretty much impossible to OD on it

Originally posted by skekUng
Free market economy?

war on drugs

more cost involved in producing it, less demand (people switched to coke, meth, and e), not a cultural thing anymore

there are lots of theories, the "acid was too dangerous" one is almost certainly not true

Originally posted by skekUng
I assume you aren't talking about the 49th ward, so to which 'community' are you referring? What in that community is left from those days?
Eugene, Oregon. Lots of old hippies lead to tolerant attitudes on sex, drugs, etc, and an emphasis on communal living and solidarity. Also had a key role in starting the organic foods movement as it now exists in Oregon.

Originally posted by inimalist
I tried to grow phalaris grass once to synthesize DMT, it didn't work (it turns out my thumbs aren't even close to green, and I literally cannot grow a grass), but the most difficult part of the process was finding good solvents and especially finding good equipment.

I can't imagine there are any extremely hard steps in making LSD (its sensitivity to light and temperature aside) that would require a PHD or anything. The hardest part would probably be setting up a decent lab to do the work in. The equipment and chemicals needed would likely be very expensive, if even available on the open market.
I agree, I can imagine it would not be too difficult if you were really interested; also, detailed instructions are readily available from Shulgin and others' works, so it should pretty much be a no brainer. Yeah, though, not exactly meth and it does require actual quality lab equipment... nothing that I think would be too difficult to get if you really tried, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
shit, I feel like I'm all over the place with this, so I will stop before it is any more convoluted...

It was a bit all over the place. But, do you see, looking back on it, as a waste of your time or as a part of your life that made you who you are? Do you think that community, counter culture, whatever, sprang up for the same reason as the one in the 60s and 70s? In my experience, the rave culture was totally accepting, as long as you were too. A lot of people, just like any gathering of people, hated if you refused to be exactly like them. I might not have wanted to take special K or X, and they saw that as some sort of condemnation of their perspective, much less their behavior while they were on it. I'm fine with a few drinks and a joint. Don't give me coke, because I end up on a soapbox giving Hitler a run for his money when it comes to ranting about politics. There simply wasn't anything appealing to me about a drug that left you rubbing up on furniture and people like a needy cat. That was simply me, though. I didn't mind them wanting to do it. But tell someone that you didn't want their drug of choice and they acted like I'd just called their mother a whore.

I guess my point is that if you reach the conclusion of acceptance and love only after you use a drug, then the concept was never really grasped. If you look at life as one on going party and then end up resenting the need to grow up as a black and white choice between that carefree life and the misery of responsability, then you end up losing your perspective, trading in your bell bottoms for brooks brothers and your volkwagon for a Mercedes. The ideas weren't bad, you just end up trading one indulgence for another when indulgence is the biggest priority in your life. The only thing they had left when the drugs wore off and the responsability kicked in was their zeal. The fought with reckless abandon for their ideas in the 60s, and when their priorities changed in the 80s, all they had left was their desire to get what they wanted at any expense. It was really the only mentality they had ever operated under, so it was all they knew.

I suppose half of getting the degree would be learning where to aquire these things...

Originally posted by inimalist
wut?

LSD is a VERY beningn substance. It can have psychological impacts on a person, but it would be pretty much impossible to OD on it



war on drugs

more cost involved in producing it, less demand (people switched to coke, meth, and e), not a cultural thing anymore

there are lots of theories, the "acid was too dangerous" one is almost certainly not true

It was a joke. In making it, I combined all those psychotropic? drugs. It was really a joke about the free market correcting itself. I have seen first hand people who got friend by X. It's not a pretty sight.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo

Yes, the Boomers. The promiscuous "free love and do drugs" Boomers who epitomized hedonism in their early years. Woodstock, fornication, and Haight-Ahsbury defined them--all of them gluttons of the flesh, consuming everything pleasurable with no thought to moral consequence. And if that lifestyle had continued, the Boomers would have done us all a favor and died young, saving our country from the crushing weight of Medicare and Social Security.


If its any consolation: in a bout 20 years (or less) the Baby Boomers will be mostly history.

Originally posted by inimalist
I suppose half of getting the degree would be learning where to aquire these things...

Just for inclusions sake, here's Shulgin's instructions for making LSD. Do you think you could pull this off? (Also, contains an interesting note on serotonin activity in LSD-analogues).

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal26.shtml

Originally posted by King Kandy
Just for inclusions sake, here's Shulgin's instructions for making LSD. Do you think you could pull this off? (Also, contains an interesting note on serotonin activity in LSD-analogues).

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal26.shtml

no

in fact, the first sentence refers to "magnetically" stirring something, which I would have no idea about.

a lot of the terms I can sort of infer what they mean, but I have no idea what a lot of the technical stuff they refer to is talking about, like brining something to a reflux by suspension.

way harder than extracting tryptomines from phalaris grass, or at least it looks that way

Originally posted by inimalist
and then some

though, the ultimate dream would be genetic work, which I think some people in the netherlands are trying to do

there have been some recent peer-review papers about how to grow high quality weed, or how to use spectroscipy to determine THC content, so it might just be a matter of time before science comes up with new superweed.

or, there is always my bioterrorism idea: splice THC into highly invasive dandilions, then demand marijuana be made legal or the seeds will be relaease.

Or just release them without fanfare and smoke 'em legally.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or just release them without fanfare and smoke 'em legally.

except for the unintended consequences of releasing a weed into the biosphere that is specifically designed to be invasive

sure, potentially, it is just as bad as dandelions. it also could destroy agriculture

Originally posted by inimalist
in fact, the first sentence refers to "magnetically" stirring something, which I would have no idea about.

Attach a magnet to a motor. Machine a piece of ferrogmagnetic metal into a ---|--- shape and coat it in plastic. Suspend your beaker just above the motor and turn it on.

You can buy hot plates that are designed for doing that.

Originally posted by inimalist
except for the unintended consequences of releasing a weed into the biosphere that is specifically designed to be invasive

sure, potentially, it is just as bad as dandelions. it also could destroy agriculture

Well if you have a weapon that can do that you don't need it to also have THC in it, do you?

thread topic is now: KMC's guide to making drugs

Originally posted by inimalist
no

in fact, the first sentence refers to "magnetically" stirring something, which I would have no idea about.

a lot of the terms I can sort of infer what they mean, but I have no idea what a lot of the technical stuff they refer to is talking about, like brining something to a reflux by suspension.

way harder than extracting tryptomines from phalaris grass, or at least it looks that way
What path were you using, for the synthesis of DMT?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well if you have a weapon that can do that you don't need it to also have THC in it, do you?

i guess not...

the threat isn't that it will destroy agriculture, that is just a possible side effect

the threat is, there is no way the state could actually control dandilions, and thus, THC would become defacto legal.

I really havent brought this past the drawing-board stage of planning

Originally posted by King Kandy
What path were you using, for the synthesis of DMT?

really simple

mash up the plant, use a... actually, i don't remember exactly off hand, you have to use either a lipid solvent, or the one (alkaline?)that isn't a lipid, to remove the tryptomines from the plant matter, let it evaporate

then you use the other one, to remove any of the remaining chemicals

EDIT: and there you see my knowledge of chemistry

god, seriously, this was years ago, I'm sure I'm missing something, but that was the general principle. I had a little notebook that I had all my plans and stuff in, but I got rid of that soon after I failed to grow the grass.

I found most of the info through Erowid, so if you are interested, I'm sure it is there. I still have a bunch of seeds, maybe I'll rig up something in a closet in my apt, give it a go again, or just grow it on my balcony this spring.

Shulgin's synthesis route for DMT, appears considerably more simple (in any pathway) than the LSD synthesis described. Starts from base Tryptamine and Methyl Iodide, seems easy enough with proper equipment.

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal06.shtml

Originally posted by skekUng
It was a bit all over the place. But, do you see, looking back on it, as a waste of your time or as a part of your life that made you who you are?

no, I loved it. I still go to "raves".

I don't go as nuts with the e as I used to, but if I still knew where to get pure MDMA, I'd be all over that. K is different, I'd very quickly become addicted to it, so I have to make sure I don't open that door, and only do it as a binge (I had a ball of it this summer, haven't touched it since).

Other than that, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, only you put it in a much less convoluted way than I did

Originally posted by King Kandy
Shulgin's synthesis route for DMT, appears considerably more simple (in any pathway) than the LSD synthesis described. Starts from base Tryptamine and Methyl Iodide, seems easy enough with proper equipment.

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal06.shtml

hmmm, maybe I'm using the wrong term

I wasn't synthesizing it from base chemicals, but rather extracting the DMT from a plant that naturally produces it.

in fact, the method I would have used could also have removed psilopsybin from mushrooms or thc from weed.

but, no, I totally remember being shocked at how easy it seemed it was going to be to make it.

Originally posted by inimalist
hmmm, maybe I'm using the wrong term

I wasn't synthesizing it from base chemicals, but rather extracting the DMT from a plant that naturally produces it.

in fact, the method I would have used could also have removed psilopsybin from mushrooms or thc from weed.

but, no, I totally remember being shocked at how easy it seemed it was going to be to make it.
Oh, OK. That changes it entirely. Yes, they are difficult in different ways. Synthesis is chemically complex, but extraction requires acquiring the actual product first.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh, OK. That changes it entirely. Yes, they are difficult in different ways. Synthesis is chemically complex, but extraction requires acquiring the actual product first.

ah, ok

again, this shows how little I actually understand what it is I'm talking about.

I love that the anti-Boomer/hippie thread turned in to a discussion about drug production.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I loved it. I still go to "raves".

I don't go as nuts with the e as I used to, but if I still knew where to get pure MDMA, I'd be all over that. K is different, I'd very quickly become addicted to it, so I have to make sure I don't open that door, and only do it as a binge (I had a ball of it this summer, haven't touched it since).

Other than that, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, only you put it in a much less convoluted way than I did

Do you think it sprang up for the same reasons as did the hippie/boomer movement, though?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I love that the anti-Boomer/hippie thread turned in to a discussion about drug production.
This one's more productive.

Originally posted by inimalist
ah, ok

again, this shows how little I actually understand what it is I'm talking about.
Hey, i'm just going off 1st year lab chem and being a generally scientific minded person.

Originally posted by skekUng
Do you think it sprang up for the same reasons as did the hippie/boomer movement, though?

no

not to racialize it or anything, but I think raves were more an expression of dissident white middle/lower class kids who, honestly, had nothing else to do.

people for whom the mainstream culture really didn't appeal.

I tend to tie hippies into the culture of civil reform that was going on in the 60s, like Kandy talks about in his "we need the draft back" thread, whereas ravers, for the most part, I didn't see as being that socially conscious.

imho, it was a much more self-centered movement. not that it is a bad thing, just that it was a response more to personal feelings of alienation rather than rebellion against specific social and cultural contexts.

though, I suppose you could argue that allienation comes from contexts or that hippes also felt alienated...

Originally posted by inimalist
no

not to racialize it or anything, but I think raves were more an expression of dissident white middle/lower class kids who, honestly, had nothing else to do.

people for whom the mainstream culture really didn't appeal.

I tend to tie hippies into the culture of civil reform that was going on in the 60s, like Kandy talks about in his "we need the draft back" thread, whereas ravers, for the most part, I didn't see as being that socially conscious.

imho, it was a much more self-centered movement. not that it is a bad thing, just that it was a response more to personal feelings of alienation rather than rebellion against specific social and cultural contexts.

though, I suppose you could argue that allienation comes from contexts or that hippes also felt alienated...
You could replace raver and hippie in almost any of those sentences, and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. While hippies do relate to the civil rights movement, I think alienation had just as much, or even more, of a role. This was coming off of the fifties and by and large, it was the blandest culture any middle-class white kid could have been raised in.

I could point to dozens of factors that caused hippies to come into being: mass protest, the war in vietnam, cultural dissatisfaction and overeducation, the heritage from the "beat" movement, and, of course, the drugs themselves. I would say, the movement happened in stages.

1st stage: intelligentsia helps create concepts behind movement (influence from "beat", largely within the domain of authors like Ken Kesey, Ginsberg, etc or scientific perspectives like the LSD-psychiatrists and Dr. Leary).

2nd stage: Actual intelligent class of youth who would have made up higher educated class of the next generation, who are inspired by these concepts (anti-war movement, alternative forms of religion, and general dissatisfaction).

3rd stage: Rank-and-file youth, who were attracted by the concepts of the 2nd stage, that is, "free love" and mind enhancing of drugs ("woodstock" phase).

This is oversimplifying it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Hey, i'm just going off 1st year lab chem and being a generally scientific minded person.

lol

so, I got into uni as a religion and culture student, intent on switching into political science.

Even my degree in psychology is a BA, I'm enrolled in an MA program

I think I might have 2 senior high school science credits

all I'm saying is I'm defering to your expertise on this one

Originally posted by King Kandy
You could replace raver and hippie in almost any of those sentences, and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. While hippies do relate to the civil rights movement, I think alienation had just as much, or even more, of a role. This was coming off of the fifties and by and large, it was the blandest culture any middle-class white kid could have been raised in.

I could point to dozens of factors that caused hippies to come into being: mass protest, the war in vietnam, cultural dissatisfaction and overeducation, the heritage from the "beat" movement, and, of course, the drugs themselves. I would say, the movement happened in stages.

1st stage: intelligentsia helps create concepts behind movement (influence from "beat", largely within the domain of authors like Ken Kesey, Ginsberg, etc or scientific perspectives like the LSD-psychiatrists and Dr. Leary).

2nd stage: Actual intelligent class of youth who would have made up higher educated class of the next generation, who are inspired by these concepts (anti-war movement, alternative forms of religion, and general dissatisfaction).

3rd stage: Rank-and-file youth, who were attracted by the concepts of the 2nd stage, that is, "free love" and mind enhancing of drugs ("woodstock" phase).

This is oversimplifying it.

fair enough, I'm really only talking from experience on this.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

so, I got into uni as a religion and culture student, intent on switching into political science.

Even my degree in psychology is a BA, I'm enrolled in an MA program

I think I might have 2 senior high school science credits

all I'm saying is I'm defering to your expertise on this one
They don't make you take science credits for psychology?

Originally posted by King Kandy
They don't make you take science credits for psychology?

nope, the bachelor of arts program did not

stats would be the closest thing

messed up eh?

I took psychology with only one high school science credit. Nearly failed it too.

Originally posted by inimalist
nope, the bachelor of arts program did not

stats would be the closest thing

messed up eh?
Yeah, it is. Suddenly, I don't feel inclined to take your word on every science-related topic we discuss anymore.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, it is. Suddenly, I don't feel inclined to take your word on every science-related topic we discuss anymore.

no, you really shouldn't

I know the brain, and a lot of the philosophical stuff

Originally posted by King Kandy
I was told that a 2nd year biochem student could reasonably make LSD... however, I was also told by others that it would require grad student level knowledge. net summary: I have no idea. In my first semester in organic chemsitry we were synthesizing something in the lab the guy who was supposed to have an eye on us (he was a student himself but far ahead with his stuff) said that there's only 1 substance and 1 step of synthesis missing to create heroin.

Sorry for the grammar, it's pretty early here and I have a cold

Originally posted by Parmaniac
In my first semester in organic chemsitry we were synthesizing something in the lab the guy who was supposed to have an eye on us (he was a student himself but far ahead with his stuff) said that there's only 1 substance and 1 step of synthesis missing to create heroin.

Sorry for the grammar, it's pretty early here and I have a cold
I always get a kick out of the idea of making a natural product via synthesis; its like, "screw you, nature"!

I think LSD is more complex than Heroin, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
no

not to racialize it or anything, but I think raves were more an expression of dissident white middle/lower class kids who, honestly, had nothing else to do.

people for whom the mainstream culture really didn't appeal.

I tend to tie hippies into the culture of civil reform that was going on in the 60s, like Kandy talks about in his "we need the draft back" thread, whereas ravers, for the most part, I didn't see as being that socially conscious.

imho, it was a much more self-centered movement. not that it is a bad thing, just that it was a response more to personal feelings of alienation rather than rebellion against specific social and cultural contexts.

though, I suppose you could argue that allienation comes from contexts or that hippes also felt alienated...


"people for whom the mainstream culture really didn't appeal."

I read this first, obviously, and instantly thought that the difference between the hippies and the ravers was that the culture that followed the hippie's change in priority was what created the impetus for the ravers. The ravers, to me at least, seemed like a collection of social outcasts who had pretty much only that in common. I supposed it could be argued it was exactly the same with the hippies. But it wasn't just rebelling against the establishment and changing the establishment to accept them. For the ravers I always got the sense that it was an attitude that nothing could be done about how the establishment felt about them, so why not get together in this sheik underground and bemoan our lot in life together. Hippies wanted to change the world to feel accepted. Ravers wanted the world to stay exactly the same so they could relish being the outcasts.

But, you really touched on that later on in your post.

This thread started off really awesome but now it sucks.

Originally posted by skekUng
"people for whom the mainstream culture really didn't appeal."

I read this first, obviously, and instantly thought that the difference between the hippies and the ravers was that the culture that followed the hippie's change in priority was what created the impetus for the ravers. The ravers, to me at least, seemed like a collection of social outcasts who had pretty much only that in common. I supposed it could be argued it was exactly the same with the hippies. But it wasn't just rebelling against the establishment and changing the establishment to accept them. For the ravers I always got the sense that it was an attitude that nothing could be done about how the establishment felt about them, so why not get together in this sheik underground and bemoan our lot in life together. Hippies wanted to change the world to feel accepted. Ravers wanted the world to stay exactly the same so they could relish being the outcasts.

But, you really touched on that later on in your post.
That seems like a valid point of distinction.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, that almost certainly was me you were stepping over at one point. On the flip side, my finger dexterity is stupid-amazing. I also probably got carpal tunnel syndrome

I'll try to keep it in relation to the thread though...

So like, raves were full of drugged up people who professed nothing but peace and love for eachother. Lots of people really thought it was a movement, like something that was going to change the world. The term PLUR was thrown around, as if the people who got high and felt the togetherness that MDMA brings were really peaceful, loving, united and respectful, but in the end, it was a scene that was just as clique-y as all the others.

There is no real substance to these counter-culture movements, and when the drugs ware off, we are all still these lonely people looking for social acceptance. There was no real social or political organization behind the movement, which a lot of people thought there would be.


(Related to the thread but interesting

On that, the UK basically banned "raves" because the drugs associated with it, with some calling it the "new hippie drug scene". This is what was behind The Prodigy's Album "Music for the Jilted Generation" With a specific example of "Their Law" being a direct reference and "middle finger" to the new laws about raves. You probably already know this but some of those techno heads in their late 30s will tell you how much like "hippies" they were, sticking it to the man in the underground scene.

I do not see them becoming the baby boomers of the UK, in the next 20 years, however. But some like to identify as the hippies of the US's 60s and 70s.


More directly on topic, I had an argument with one of my history professors about SS and Medicare.


Here is the response to the Prof. about it:




(For this, we can use my retirement options.)


She said my perspective was very selfish, naive, and closed-minded. But why is she not the selfish, naive, and closed minded person? I understand that it will affect her generation if we cut it off, now, before it was too late. But wasn't that rather naive to not invest in her own retirement options IN ADDITION to her SS? Didn't she know that SS was never a "this is all you need" option? It was never a "all you need" option, ever, and was only to function as an assistance program, not a system that replaces your entire retirement. And from what older folks tell me, the original SS system in place was setup the way I outlined: private investment into retirement plans, but it was required.

So why the change? These older folks (they can be found at McDonald's every early morning from about 6-9...yes, I'm serious.) tell me that they were pissed when the government changed the system to a more social system. They are one generation older than the baby boomers so they think differently. These old folks are the "Greatest Generation" on through the "Silent Generation." One of my college books call these people the "traditionalists." They are sometimes referred to as the "we" generation to show a contrast to the "whining baby boomers" that are called the "me" generation.

Anyway, I like the traditionalists much more than the Baby Boomers. That professor of mine thinks she's entitled to my money for another 15 years, knowing full well that the system will fail while she is still alive and won't be there when it's time for me to retire in 2040. She doesn't care. Yet I'm the one that is naive, closed minded, and selfish, right?

Meanwhile, I'm investing in my own retirement in addition to pissing away thousands of dollars a year into SS and medicare/medicaid. My 401K retirement, at current investment, will see a bit over $7 million. That number may seem huge, but you have to factor in inflation. That money equates to something like 2 million (I don't remember...the formula is somewhere and I can't be arsed to find it.) Again, that may seem like a lot of money, but it's not: I will probably not be able to live off the interest from that money (if i take into account inflation and standard of living, the money I would get from interest would not be enough and I would have to dip into that pool of money just to live.).


They say that, now, you have to have $2 million to retire. What will it be in 2040? I don't even want to think about that.

That means I will have to invest much more aggressively in my retirement when I am done with school. But why? I could be done with this thing if I could just invest all my SS and Medicare and Medicaid money, now, and not have to worry about what I lack in my investment retirement.


Look at the best CD rates online and you'll find stuff as high as 1.85% APY (You do not want to do any sort of risky investing after you retire so things like Municipal Bonds and CDs are cool.) Apply that to $2 million. That's only $37,000 a year.

Apply it to $7 million: $129,500. But, with inflation, that number is much less by 2040. It would be comparable to the $2 million...if I remember. (If someone can find that formula, I'd be much obliged...it should be under investment formulas somewhere.)

If you own your home and your cars, right now, $37,000 might be do-able for most of America, right? That's just not the case. Factor in the ever increasing medical insurance, car insurance, home owners insurance, bla bla bla bla. Then factor in inflation, and that's poor. So even debt free, it would be difficult for a couple to live off of $37,000 a year. (Assuming that SS and Medicare do not exist...which is what I'm having to look forward to.)

Just checked the retirement calculator from Yahoo. I'll have to have over $10 million saved!!!!!!!!! I have to bump up retirement in order to get there.

Keep in mind, give me my SS, Medicare/Medicaid money, and that's not a problem.




P.S. I never sent that e-mail, above, to her. I figure I'll just let it slide.

There is always someone to blame but yourself.

Do you have some sort of mental midget magic 8ball that you shake up to get your responses?

No I just say what I want!That is the beauty of freedom of speech!

You might want to consider going with the 8ball theory.

Originally posted by dadudemon
(Related to the thread but interesting

On that, the UK basically banned "raves" because the drugs associated with it, with some calling it the "new hippie drug scene". This is what was behind The Prodigy's Album "Music for the Jilted Generation" With a specific example of "Their Law" being a direct reference and "middle finger" to the new laws about raves. You probably already know this but some of those techno heads in their late 30s will tell you how much like "hippies" they were, sticking it to the man in the underground scene.

I have a book on the Prodigy, one of the most amazing groups ever imho

at one point, the band consisted on Liam making beats, an MC, and 3 dancers. when over 50% of your band is dedicated to just busting loose, you know you are doing something right

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not see them becoming the baby boomers of the UK, in the next 20 years, however. But some like to identify as the hippies of the US's 60s and 70s.

ya, a lot did, but I really only remember that being in terms of drug use. They would call themselves hippies because they liked to get high and all that. It was almost never in regard to having a socio-political conscious.

Its weird, there were a couple of times in my experience that people did try to move the rave culture in that direction, but it just never worked out. It was a very self centered, as in, you go to a rave to be part of a community, sure, but you are their for your own enjoyment, and it that mutual desire to just be free and hedonistic that untied everyone, not some grander sense of social responsibility.

Though, I don't want to totally mischaracterize hippies here, I can't say that isn't exactly what the hippie movement was....

Originally posted by skekUng
"people for whom the mainstream culture really didn't appeal."

I read this first, obviously, and instantly thought that the difference between the hippies and the ravers was that the culture that followed the hippie's change in priority was what created the impetus for the ravers. The ravers, to me at least, seemed like a collection of social outcasts who had pretty much only that in common. I supposed it could be argued it was exactly the same with the hippies. But it wasn't just rebelling against the establishment and changing the establishment to accept them. For the ravers I always got the sense that it was an attitude that nothing could be done about how the establishment felt about them, so why not get together in this sheik underground and bemoan our lot in life together. Hippies wanted to change the world to feel accepted. Ravers wanted the world to stay exactly the same so they could relish being the outcasts.

But, you really touched on that later on in your post.

wow, ya, I couldn't put it better than that if I tried....

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No I just say what I want!That is the beauty of freedom of speech!
Remember, folks: she is literally too stupid to understand what she says. She has admitted in the past to having a learning disability.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Remember, folks: she is literally too stupid to understand what she says. She has admitted in the past to having a learning disability.

No one cares...

I was unaware that she was mental. I'll place her on my ignore list.

Originally posted by Free_Speech
No one cares...
Go away, Whirly.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Go away, Whirly.

No offence; but, you're autistic right?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Remember, folks: she is literally too stupid to understand what she says. She has admitted in the past to having a learning disability.
Yes, that is totally conducive to discussion to insult people while adding absolutely no content. Reported.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I was told that a 2nd year biochem student could reasonably make LSD... however, I was also told by others that it would require grad student level knowledge. net summary: I have no idea.

As a person with a full degree in molecular biology, I believe chemistry to be a lot like cooking.. You follow the instructions, weigh out the ingredients and bake the cake. If you follow the correct recipe well enough, your product will be successful.... Chemistry practicals by there nature; often, require little scientific understanding - if you can read and follow a schedule.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, that is totally conducive to discussion to insult people while adding absolutely no content. Reported.
I am not insulting her; I am stating a fact. Anyone trying to engage ADarkSideJedi/Jackie Malfoy in a meaningful conversation is going to be frustrated because she is literally retarded. I'm not calling her a retard in the arm-chest-beating sense, but in the proper medical condition.

Please be less of a whiny libtard in the future, kthx.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I am not insulting her; I am stating a fact. Anyone trying to engage ADarkSideJedi/Jackie Malfoy in a meaningful conversation is going to be frustrated because she is literally retarded. I'm not calling her a retard in the arm-chest-beating sense, but in the proper medical condition.

Please be less of a whiny libtard in the future, kthx.
Here's a fact: you're trolling.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I am not insulting her; I am stating a fact. Anyone trying to engage ADarkSideJedi/Jackie Malfoy in a meaningful conversation is going to be frustrated because she is literally retarded. I'm not calling her a retard in the arm-chest-beating sense, but in the proper medical condition.

Please be less of a whiny libtard in the future, kthx. p7C9MpYs0T8

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I am not insulting her; I am stating a fact. Anyone trying to engage ADarkSideJedi/Jackie Malfoy in a meaningful conversation is going to be frustrated because she is literally retarded. I'm not calling her a retard in the arm-chest-beating sense, but in the proper medical condition.

Please be less of a whiny libtard in the future, kthx.
You've been giving a warning to cut out this behavior in the past, but it seems like at this point your time on this site will be very limited. Reported, by the way.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You've been giving a warning to cut out this behavior in the past, but it seems like at this point your time on this site will be very limited. Reported, by the way.

When did you become a mod?

Well, in that case...

*Pays homage to the new mod*

He was given a warning, by a mod. Not by me. I was just reminding him.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You've been giving a warning to cut out this behavior in the past, but it seems like at this point your time on this site will be very limited. Reported, by the way.
Please stop posting in this thread.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Please stop posting in this thread.
Its funny that you say that considering i've contributed 10x more content to it than you have.

How has Zeal not been banned yet, is the question.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How has Zeal not been banned yet, is the question.
I'm a nice guy.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He was given a warning, by a mod. Not by me. I was just reminding him.

lol

I did not read the end of your post where you said you reported him...I kind of got a bit too retarded at thinking you were a mod and clicked "reply".

Yes, I'm serious.

Please get this thread back on track.

And Zeal, keep your thoughts on other members' intelligence to yourself, calling someone stupid won't fly, and you know it.

Do it again and you'll be banned.

It's not a "thought"; it's the truth. ADarkSideJedi is literally mentally handicapped. She herself has admitted this.

And what does that have to do with the baby boomers?

Regardless, the term stupid doesn't mean someone is mentally handicapped, it's an insult - that is its meaning. Do not do it again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol

I did not read the end of your post where you said you reported him...I kind of got a bit too retarded at thinking you were a mod and clicked "reply".

Yes, I'm serious.
No, lol, i'm not a mod yet. That would be nice, but, it doesn't seem like they're hiring.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
For some time, I have been asking myself, "Where did the Republican party go wrong?" When did my party of small government and fiscal responsibility become the big government party of corporate greed and national debt? It was when the Baby Boomers took over.

Yes, the Boomers. The promiscuous "free love and do drugs" Boomers who epitomized hedonism in their early years. Woodstock, fornication, and Haight-Ahsbury defined them--all of them gluttons of the flesh, consuming everything pleasurable with no thought to moral consequence. And if that lifestyle had continued, the Boomers would have done us all a favor and died young, saving our country from the crushing weight of Medicare and Social Security.

But no, the Boomers grew up. They, like every college liberal, stepped out of their marijuana-induced haze of freedom and "**** the consequences" mindset, and they started working for a living. They put away their burning bras and LSD, and they became gainfully employed. And as they worked, they made money. As they made money, they embraced consumerism. And still at this time, America was mighty, and they gobbled up everything that capitalism offered to them. They delighted in their own decadence. But that wasn't enough for them. Nothing has ever been enough for the "Me" generation, nothing except for more, more, more.

Because then the 1980s hit, and Ronald Reagan became president. The Boomers at this time "got religion," so to speak. They condemned sin and lectured about abstinence, all the while their loose thighs tingled with the remembrance of sexual encounters past. Even in the Nixon years, they turned against the drugs they so happily imbibed in their youth, but Reagan was the height of Boomer self-indulgence. Reagan was the shining beacon of moral decay in America, when greed became good, when "**** y'all, I got mine" became the slogan of the Republican party.

And what did Reagan do as part of the Boomer legacy? He cut their taxes. He lied to us, told us that the rich would give us jobs if we gave them more money. He explained in that cheerful, disarming, charismatic way that he had about him--he explained that rugged individualism was the key to success in America. And the Boomers, the generation that did not know want, the generation that had grown up in an idyllic America, ate that shit right up. And how did they repay America for lowering their taxes? They shipped jobs overseas to see their stocks go up a point. They laid off thousands of workers to see a 2% profit increase. They took a giant, steaming dump all over America in the name of greed.

And what happened? Christianity became swallowed up by the Republican party and perverted so that it appealed to the Boomer generation. Instead of railing against greed and demanding that we provide for the poor, Christianity became twisted. It turned from a religion of peace and charity to a religion defined as pro-life and anti-sex. As long as a politician talked about "traditional values," the Boomer's warped, hypocritical Christian morals signed on. Military action in the Middle East? The destruction of working class America? The sanctioning of avarice? Well, as long as they were pro-life, it didn't matter. At least not to the Boomers.

And this is where things in America took a turn for the worse. The Republican party, once a party of relatively moderate, sane persons, took a turn to the right to appeal to the Boomer audience. Embracing greed and self-righteous piety, they welcomed the Boomers into their ranks. Now the party has borne the fruits of its labor: an aging populace known for their piggish, reactionary elements who shriek at the top of their lungs that the notion of anything remotely progressive is sinful or socialism.

And now what is left of the Republican party? Nothing resembling humanity. We have the liars and politicians assuring us that we need to give tax breaks to the rich so they'll give us jobs, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile. We have the religious authoritarians telling us that drugs are a sin and we need to keep them illegal, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile. We have the neoconservatives telling us that we need to send more of our soldiers to their deaths in the Middle East, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile.

And why shouldn't the Boomers agree? They're the wealthy business owners now, so they want tax breaks. They're done with drugs, so they don't mind if a new age of prohibition if upon us. They aren't in the military, so they don't care if our men and women die. In fact, as long as something doesn't affect the most selfish, self-indulgent generation in American history, they don't give a ****. Why else would they rail against "socialism" and "big government" while leeching off of Medicare and Social Security? Because they're worthless and a cancer on society.

And this is why the Republican party is bad. As long as the Boomers cast their blighted shadow on America, the party of small government and fiscal responsibility will remain the party of corporate greed and regressive social mores. The only hope for the party is for young, educated people to push aside the bloated carcass of the Boomer heritance and retake the Republican standard from the wretched grasp of the worst generation. The hippies and other 60's counterculture members were actually a small minority in the US and in all other countries. The consumeristic reactionary assholes you blame for the GOP's current state were, in general, already consumeristic reactionary assholes in their youth. Most old hippies stayed to the left of political center, although some did follow the path you described.

Edit: Even if they had become gop card carrying member en masse, It's ludicrous to blame the youth radicals for the **** ups of conservatism 30 years down the road, as if the problems did not lie in the practices they adopted as conservatives when older.

Originally posted by skekUng
You might want to consider going with the 8ball theory.

No that is not needed I reather come up with my own stuff thank you.

Originally posted by 753
The hippies and other 60's counterculture members were actually a small minority in the US and in all other countries. The consumeristic reactionary assholes you blame for the GOP's current state were, in general, already consumeristic reactionary assholes in their youth. Most old hippies stayed to the left of political center, although some did follow the path you described.

Edit: Even if they had become gop card carrying member en masse, It's ludicrous to blame the youth radicals for the **** ups of conservatism 30 years down the road, as if the problems did not lie in the practices they adopted as conservatives when older.
This, to a large degree. While there were probably some ex-hippies among the Reagan-democrat crowd, by and large it was the larger group of youth who didn't join the subculture who became the later neocons.

I hate the Baby Boomers. They're the most self-centered, self-seeking, self-
interested, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing generation in
American history. As they enter late middle age, the Boomers still can't grow
up. Guys who once dropped acid are now downing Viagra; women who once eschewed
lipstick are now getting liposuction.

I know it's a sin to hate, so let me put it this way: If they were animals,
they'd be a plague of locusts, devouring everything in their path and leaving
but a wasteland. If they were plants, they'd be kudzu, choking off ever other
living thing with their sheer mass. If they were artists, they'd be abstract
expressionists, interested only in the emotions of that moment -- not in the
lasting result of the creative process. If they were a baseball club, they'd be
the Florida Marlins: prefab prima donnas who bought their way to prominence,
then disbanded -- a temporary association but not a team.

Of course, it is as unfair to demonize an entire generation as it is to
characterize an entire gender or race or religion. And I don't literally mean
that everyone born between 1946 and 1964 is a selfish pig. But generations can
have a unique character that defines them, especially if they are the elites of
a generation -- those lucky few who are blessed with the money or brains or
looks or skills or education that typifies an era. Whether is was Fitzgerald and
Hemingway defining the Lost Generation of World War I and the Roaring Twenties,
or JFK and the other heroes of the World War II generation, or the high-tech
whiz kids of the post-Boomer generation, certain archetypes define certain
times.

You know who you are. If you grew your hair and burned your draft card on campus
during the Sixties; if you toked, screwed, and boogied your way through the
Seventies; if you voted for Reagan and believed "Greed is good" in the Eighties;
and if you're trying to make up for it now by nesting as you cluck about the
collapse of "family values," you're it. If not, even if demographers call you a
Boomer, you probably hate our generation's elite as much as I do.

Let's start with the Sixties, the Boomers' dilettante ball. While a few
courageous people like John Lewis and the Freedom Riders risked their lives --
and others like Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner gave theirs
-- the civil-rights movement was led by pre-Boomers like Martin Luther King Jr.
(who would be 71 if he were alive today) and continued without strong support
from the Boomers on college campuses.

Still, I must say this: If you were one of those young people who did risk their
lives to fight racism in the Sixties, who put their bodies on the line to
register voters, who marched and sang and taught and preached against
segregation, you stand as the best refutation of my anti-Boomer tirade. In that
one moment of conscience and courage, you did more with your life than I've done
in all the moments of mine. In a generation of selfish pigs, you were saints.

But the reality is that most campuses did not become hotbeds of unrest until the
Boomers' precious butts were at risk as the Vietnam War escalated. They didn't
want to end the war because they were bothered by working-class kids being blown
apart; if they had been, they wouldn't have spat on those working-class kids
when they came home from Vietnam, or tried to make heroes out of the Communists
who were trying to kill them.

Yet as troubling as that may be, the Sixties were in many ways the Boomers'
finest moment. It was at least a fad then to pretend to care about racial
justice at home and war abroad, to speak out against pollution and prejudice.
But it was mostly just talk. As they came of age, and as idealism might have
required some real sacrifice, idealism suddenly became unfashionable.

And so the Boomers careened into the Seventies without a thought to picking up
where King and the Kennedys left off. Without a war to threaten them, their
selfishness came into full bloom. You know the results: Drug abuse, once a
boutique curse of hip musicians, became more common than the clap. And speaking
of sexually transmitted diseases, the Boomers began to fornicate with such
abandon that rabbits we asking them to cool their jets. They didn't invent sex
or drugs or rock 'n' roll, but they damned near ruined them all.

And don't give me this crap about Boomer music. The Beatles were all born before
the end of the war. So was Janis. So while the Boomers can claim they had the
good taste to listen to gifted pre-Boomers, when it came their turn to make
music, the truest expression of their generation, what did they give us?

Disco.

The generation that came before the Boomers gave them Dylan. The Boomers gave us
KC and the Sunshine Band. Thanks a lot.

Unfair? Perhaps it is a bit of an overstatement. Some friends of mine have
suggested it's an outrage to ignore Baby Boomer Bruce Springsteen, for one. True
enough.

But even more than music, our remarkable economy is what drives and defines the
times we live in today. And as the generation in the economic driver's seat, the
Boomers should get the credit for building this remarkable prosperity, right?

Well, not quite. Nothing can detract from the breathtaking entrepreneurship of
Boomers like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But what's interesting is that much of
today's prosperity owes its origins more to the high-tech young nerds of the
post-Boom generation than to the Boomers themselves. The most vital role the
Boomers have in the current economy is to sit on their brains and invest in
post-Boomer high-tech start-ups. The same folks who sponged off their parents
when they were young are now, as they age, getting rich off the industry of
their younger brothers and sisters.

Boomer political and economic values reached their most perfect expression under
pre-Boomer president Ronald Reagan in the Eighties: Screw your neighbor, lay off
the factory workers, shuffle a lot of paper, build an economy in which a few
people get the gold mine and most people get the shaft. It is telling that when
he ran for reelection, Reagan got higher support among Boomers than he did from
his fellow older Americans. Perhaps some of the Greatest Generation saw the
selfishness in Reaganism and turned away from it. And perhaps the Boomers saw
those same qualities, that savage selfishness, and embraced it.

In the long run, will it matter that one generation was so spectacularly
selfish? Maybe not. In a great karmic irony, the Worst Generation may in turn be
raising another great one. Having taught the children of the Baby Boomers off an
on for five years now, at the University of Texas at Georgetown, I find them to
be the opposite of everything I despise about their parents -- they are engaged
in their communities, spending endless hours volunteering to build housing for
the poor or to feed the homeless. They are concerned about their classmates,
having calmed down the PC mania and replaced it with a sensible sensitivity to
the feelings of others. They care about the future and are concerned about their
grandparents. They are more responsible in their private lives and more engaged
in our public life. I have no idea whether it's because of the Boomers or in
spite of them.

Greatest Generation chronicler Tom Brokaw has the difference pegged: "The World
War II generation did what was expected of them. But they never talked about it.
It was part of the Code. There's no more telling metaphor than a guy in a
football game who does what's expected of him -- makes an open-field tackle --
then gets up and dances around. When Jerry Kramer threw the block that won the
Ice Bowl in '67, he just got up and walked off the field."

That kind of self-effacing dignity is wholly alien to the Boomer elite. But when
that day comes, when they finally walk off the field -- or what's left of the
field -- a few of us who've been trailing behind them will be doing a little
dance of our own.

...by Paul Begala

Originally posted by 753
The hippies and other 60's counterculture members were actually a small minority in the US and in all other countries. The consumeristic reactionary assholes you blame for the GOP's current state were, in general, already consumeristic reactionary assholes in their youth. Most old hippies stayed to the left of political center, although some did follow the path you described.

Edit: Even if they had become gop card carrying member en masse, It's ludicrous to blame the youth radicals for the **** ups of conservatism 30 years down the road, as if the problems did not lie in the practices they adopted as conservatives when older.

maybe "hippie" isn't the best way to group these people, but the 60s were a much more radical and socially conscious time, at least that is how it is remembered

that almost all of that radicalism has turned into white flight and suburban living is an interesting point

the change in social consciousnes on university campuses, for instance. I guess those london riots were something...

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe "hippie" isn't the best way to group these people, but the 60s were a much more radical and socially conscious time, at least that is how it is remembered

that almost all of that radicalism has turned into white flight and suburban living is an interesting point

the change in social consciousnes on university campuses, for instance. I guess those london riots were something...
There were radical hippies in the 1960s... but, there were tons of "straights" as well. You can't be a counterculture unless there's a larger "regular" culture to be against. When the time comes to vote, hippie candidates never panned out, because in terms of sheer numbers, they weren't as much of a presence as their social impact was.

I don't know about that. Well, at least where I live, there used to be lots of communes, and the city expanded to draw them in, not so much them leaving in favor of the city.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There were radical hippies in the 1960s... but, there were tons of "straights" as well. You can't be a counterculture unless there's a larger "regular" culture to be against. When the time comes to vote, hippie candidates never panned out, because in terms of sheer numbers, they weren't as much of a presence as their social impact was.

I don't know about that. Well, at least where I live, there used to be lots of communes, and the city expanded to draw them in, not so much them leaving in favor of the city.

no, that totally makes sense, but like, do you think you could get the "counter culture" of today to hold a sit in or occupy a university? Students got shot by the police during the protest movement of the 60s, it had to be a bigger phenomenon than just "those outcast kids".

Maybe not everyone was a hippie, but there was way more going on. Maybe it's just rose coloured glasses, but it seems like that era was more aware of the world at large. Maybe it was the draft, or civil rights, or whatever, but I think the radicalism, at least by today's standards, was more widespread than just religating it to a counter-culture would insinuate.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, that totally makes sense, but like, do you think you could get the "counter culture" of today to hold a sit in or occupy a university? Students got shot by the police during the protest movement of the 60s, it had to be a bigger phenomenon than just "those outcast kids".

Maybe not everyone was a hippie, but there was way more going on. Maybe it's just rose coloured glasses, but it seems like that era was more aware of the world at large. Maybe it was the draft, or civil rights, or whatever, but I think the radicalism, at least by today's standards, was more widespread than just religating it to a counter-culture would insinuate.
Well, I totally agree. That's why I made a thread to discuss whether it was related to the draft or not.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, I totally agree. That's why I made a thread to discuss whether it was related to the draft or not.

it does make sense. Even the london protests were over tuition fees.

god, maybe you are right, I've always thought we should reinvade Vietnam just for the rock and roll, 2 birds, one stone.

Originally posted by inimalist
it does make sense. Even the london protests were over tuition fees.

god, maybe you are right, I've always thought we should reinvade Vietnam just for the rock and roll, 2 birds, one stone. That was actual reason behind Iraq. When it didn't work out they made up some bogus claim about lieing about WMDs.

Originally posted by inimalist
it does make sense. Even the london protests were over tuition fees.

god, maybe you are right, I've always thought we should reinvade Vietnam just for the rock and roll, 2 birds, one stone.
Hahaha. If there had been a draft, Iraq war never could have gotten off the ground.

Originally posted by inimalist
Maybe not everyone was a hippie, but there was way more going on. Maybe it's just rose coloured glasses, but it seems like that era was more aware of the world at large. Maybe it was the draft, or civil rights, or whatever, but I think the radicalism, at least by today's standards, was more widespread than just religating it to a counter-culture would insinuate.

You could see the differences they were addressing with their radicalism, though. A black man would walk down the street, just the same as a white. Same with women of any color. The causes today seem to be the things that everybody back then could agree with. Why can't a black man marry a white woman? Why shouldn't women make as much as men? All of that is fine. But two dudes settling down? That's just wrong. The outrage has gotetn more sophisticated, but only because of the outrage of those days. It's like sitcoms. Sure, there are still the Everybody Loves Raymonds, but there's also Curb Your Enthusiasm and Arrested Development.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There were radical hippies in the 1960s... but, there were tons of "straights" as well. You can't be a counterculture unless there's a larger "regular" culture to be against. When the time comes to vote, hippie candidates never panned out, because in terms of sheer numbers, they weren't as much of a presence as their social impact was.

I don't know about that. Well, at least where I live, there used to be lots of communes, and the city expanded to draw them in, not so much them leaving in favor of the city.

It's kind of hard to slice and dice them when both parties have become corporate whores.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Hahaha. If there had been a draft, Iraq war never could have gotten off the ground.

Why not?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I touch small girls!!

Why is this man not banned? He is a pedophile!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why not?
Because people would have wanted to inform themselves on the war if they knew they might have to give their life for it, and they would have found out how completely full of shit the reasons were for going there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because people would have wanted to inform themselves on the war if they knew they might have to give their life for it, and they would have found out how completely full of shit the reasons were for going there.

Not necessarily. There was always a protest whenever there was a draft in history. But they were just futile expressions of peoples' opinions because the draft carried on anyway, whether it was the Civil War, WW2 or Vietnam. What makes you think that this time it would have been any different? (the answer: nothing.)

Sure, you'd have college kids carrying signs saying "Hell No, We Won't Go", but in the grand scheme of things, nothing would change. The draft would continue.

I think the whole "a draft would cut down on frivolous wars because people would think about them more" is as faulty a notion as was Nobel's belief that the invention of dynamite would forever end war because of how terrible it was. Ditto for the inventor of the Gatling Gun and to a lesser extent early commentators on nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think the whole "a draft would cut down on frivolous wars because people would think about them more" is as faulty a notion as was Nobel's belief that the invention of dynamite would forever end war because of how terrible it was. Ditto for the inventor of the Gatling Gun and to a lesser extent early commentators on nuclear weapons.
I don't see why you find that a sound connection at all. Dynamite and Gatling Gun all further wars. I don't see how anti-war protests further wars at all.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see how anti-war protests further wars at all.

They don't further them, they just have zero impact on them. Go to DC or any college campus and you'll find demonstrators opposed to the war. None of their chanting or sign-waiving seems to be ending the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why you find that a sound connection at all. Dynamite and Gatling Gun all further wars. I don't see how anti-war protests further wars at all.
Dynamite and the Gatling Gun were both invented with the intent that they present a weapon so terrifying that countries would realize the folly of war and live happily ever after.

The principle that Draft protests would stop all wars, or any wars for that matter is equally faulty.

If the American government wants to go to war the American government will probably go to war, even if it has to drag the public kicking and screaming.

The only surefire way to prevent frivolous war is to have an anti-war government.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dynamite and the Gatling Gun were both invented with the intent that they present a weapon so terrifying that countries would realize the folly of war and live happily ever after.

The principle that Draft protests would stop all wars, or any wars for that matter is equally faulty.

If the American government wants to go to war the American government will probably go to war, even if it has to drag the public kicking and screaming.

The only surefire way to prevent frivolous war is to have an anti-war government.
Um, right. And to have an anti-war government, you need to vote one into power, by having a public that is anti-war. I think that the draft is a good way to do that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They don't further them, they just have zero impact on them. Go to DC or any college campus and you'll find demonstrators opposed to the war. None of their chanting or sign-waiving seems to be ending the war in Iraq.
Right, that's why a draft would help; the general public would have to pay attention to anti-war movements, because it could be a matter of life and death.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, right. And to have an anti-war government, you need to vote one into power, by having a public that is anti-war. I think that the draft is a good way to do that.

An anti war government that will repeal the draft. Thus beginning the process again.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Right, that's why a draft would help; the general public would have to pay attention to anti-war movements, because it could be a matter of life and death.

Drafts never helped end a war before. This time wouldn't be any different.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Drafts never helped end a war before. This time wouldn't be any different.
The anti-vietnam attitudes had a serious role in the way that war ended.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The anti-vietnam attitudes had a serious role in the way that war ended.

Yeah, but it only 12 years of US involvement ...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah, but it only 12 years of US involvement ...
I'm awestruck by how long it would have lasted if everyone was in favor of it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see how anti-war protests further wars at all.

It can certainly bring the "war" to the people in a more sentimental definition of "war", which is exactly what happened to the Vietnam.

I also do not see how the protests did anything spectacular to end the war. Politicians were already divided over the issue from "day 1".

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm awestruck by how long it would have lasted if everyone was in favor of it. May not have lasted as long if it was approved of by the public. A few years ago, some audio tapes revealed Nixon once complained that if it wasn't for the hewn outcry about civilian casualties that they would have been able to firebomb the North, "burn every forest". Nothing ends a war like obliterating the entire enemy country.

I don't want an anti-war population. I want a population willing to go to war for the right reasons. But right now, I want the troops to come home.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because people would have wanted to inform themselves on the war if they knew they might have to give their life for it, and they would have found out how completely full of shit the reasons were for going there.

Look how many people signed up after the bombing of pearl harbor, and 9/11. Enlistment skyrocketed after both. I think we would have seen the same war, only with more and more people serving more and more deployments. We saw this for a lot of years under the last administration, and I don't know if that has or has not changed with this administration.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It can certainly bring the "war" to the people in a more sentimental definition of "war", which is exactly what happened to the Vietnam.

I also do not see how the protests did anything spectacular to end the war. Politicians were already divided over the issue from "day 1".
Is there a single instance in history where protests or riots (not rebellions/revolutions mind you ) ended a war?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Is there a single instance in history where protests or riots (not rebellions/revolutions mind you ) ended a war?

the closest one I can think of would be Russia in WW1, but that was more of a revolution

or maybe Ghandi if you want to consider colonial occupation as a "war"

Originally posted by inimalist
the closest one I can think of would be Russia in WW1, but that was more of a revolution

or maybe Ghandi if you want to consider colonial occupation as a "war"
Well it's called the October Revolution for a reason.

I don't.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well it's called the October Revolution for a reason.

I don't.

picky, picky

there is more to the October Revolution than just the revolutionaries. Protests from regular people who weren't necessarily part of any formal revolutionary group were just as effective as bringing down parts of the state as a result of wartime famile, etc. You are right, it was, in general, a revolution, but there were way more people in the streets than just the communist radicals.

I think I agree on the other

Originally posted by inimalist
picky, picky

there is more to the October Revolution than just the revolutionaries. Protests from regular people who weren't necessarily part of any formal revolutionary group were just as effective as bringing down parts of the state as a result of wartime famile, etc. You are right, it was, in general, a revolution, but there were way more people in the streets than just the communist radicals.

I think I agree on the other
Just a random question but do you (or anyone here for that matter) happen to know the distinction between a rebellion and a revolution (if any)?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Just a random question but do you (or anyone here for that matter) happen to know the distinction between a rebellion and a revolution (if any)?

wiki explains it as, a rebellion is any challange to the established authority, whereas a revolution is a type of rebellion that seeks to overthrow and fundamentally change the way a system works. So, all revolutions would be rebellions but not vice versa.

Also, to call a something a Revolution it must have suceeded in seizing power.

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe "hippie" isn't the best way to group these people, but the 60s were a much more radical and socially conscious time, at least that is how it is remembered

that almost all of that radicalism has turned into white flight and suburban living is an interesting point

the change in social consciousnes on university campuses, for instance. I guess those london riots were something... I agree, but the point is that 60s radicals worldwide, hippies or not, were in general a loud minority of young peopelwhose revolt found suficient ressonance in society at large to cascade down to the mainstream an cause social changes. Although it's true that political conscience, social activism and ideological radicalism were much bigger back then than they are today, they were never the mainstream and the radicals in general did not age into the social basis of contemporary reactionarism.

You're right; and this generation is the one paying for it. We're cleaning up their mess. Feels bad, man.

My hatred for Boomers has been revived. I was discussing with my parents something, and they both talked in grandiose terms about how their generation was the backbone of America and that "kids these days" blah-blah-blah. My mom even had the nerve to conflate the Greatest Generation with the Boomer generation. Then my parents had the audacity to speak in glowing terms about Ronald Reagan and how he had a spine, unlike Obama, and how they elected him but my generation elected Obammy.

This reminded me: I ****ING HATE BOOMERS SO MUCH. I love my parents, but the world will be a better place when they can no longer vote and their poisonous supply-side philosophy is ridiculed for the nonsense that it is and hated for the greed it represents.

Thus, a brief message to the Baby Boomers:

Needless to say, the world will be a much better place when people stop becoming enraged at generational differences.

Well said. That pretty much sums up all my complaints against the "logic" of boomers any time we argue.

Luckily, my economics professor (A baby boomer) was a staunch homo economicus subscriber so he was all about dissolving almost all socialist constructs at the cost of forcing everyone to have to govern their own finances. It was like a breath of fresh air amongst boomers. Not that I entirely agree with him, but the libertarian side of me couldn't resist agreeing with most of the things he was saying.

Not to play devils advocate but as a baby boomer we did nothing any other generation wouldn't have done given the opportunity. The "greatest generation" started social security and were still in power when medicare came to pass. I see many here singing the praises of capitalism but decrying corporatism which is ironic because you cannot have one without the other....especially in this era.

Bottom line is...humans are greedy, from any generation. We want far more from this world than the world is able to give over time. We boomers just caught it on a high end cycle. Now it's crashing, at least for the USA and the west.

Now to wait and see how China, India, and Brazil really fukk things up.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Not to play devils advocate but as a baby boomer we did nothing any other generation wouldn't have done given the opportunity. The "greatest generation" started social security and were still in power when medicare came to pass. I see many here singing the praises of capitalism but decrying corporatism which is ironic because you cannot have one without the other....especially in this era.

That seems unsupported, and incorrect.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That seems unsupported, and incorrect.

But it is correct. Just look at history. Every great civilization goes through a period of excess which eventually leads to their undoing.

THat usually lasted centuries. This one only one generation.

And they don't seem to adamant to leave something for the generations after them.

I think he means the idea that capitalism has to lead to corporate oligarchy, which I'd also argue with you about. The collusion between government and the corporate elite which allow for the conditions as they exist today is counter to almost all philosophical capitalism, especially in terms of Smith/Rand/Friedman (though the latter two also sang loudly about deregulation, which might not be such a good idea)

^True...But a surreally opressive oligarchy of bureaucrats only namely concerned with the people's wellfare that reinvented slave labour and sent millions of workers and freethinkers packing to concentration camps for nor knowing their places wasn't quite what Marx and Engels were getting at either.

sadly, concrete reality is all we got to show for, so I'm extremly skeptical of discourses about the true spirit of whatever that happened to get twisted by assholes in the course of history. too close to the no true scottsman fallacy for confort.

Originally posted by 753
^True...But a surreally opressive oligarchy of bureaucrats only namely concerned with the people's wellfare that reinvented slave labour and sent millions of workers and freethinkers packing to concentration camps for nor knowing their places wasn't quite what Marx and Engels were getting at either.

sadly, concrete reality is all we got to show for, so I'm extremly skeptical of discourses about the true spirit of whatever that happened to get twisted by assholes in the course of history. too close to the no true scottsman fallacy for confort.

The thing though is, why exactly is this interpreted as a failing and/or implementation of capitalism, when it is more akin to a perversion of a social economy paired with a corruption of the government. Sure there is a lot of propaganda about capitalism and the free market, but it is not an implementation of that, we don't have a free market, the problems with the health care now (and before) is exactly that it is NOT a free capitalist market (admittedly it could perhaps be solved with more government oversight as well, but it's not capitalism that causes the problem). It is like blaming socialism for the Nazis, as their rhetoric included "the workers".

Originally posted by 753
^True...But a surreally opressive oligarchy of bureaucrats only namely concerned with the people's wellfare that reinvented slave labour and sent millions of workers and freethinkers packing to concentration camps for nor knowing their places wasn't quite what Marx and Engels were getting at either.

sadly, concrete reality is all we got to show for, so I'm extremly skeptical of discourses about the true spirit of whatever that happened to get twisted by assholes in the course of history. too close to the no true scottsman fallacy for confort.

no, and I'd agree with you, ultimately pure "anything-ism" is going to fail because it assumes things about the nature of humans. Capitalism assumes that there is a way to stop money and power from colluding to control certain aspects of the economy or society.

However, if we look at what has happened in our society, much like if we look at the time of Lenin before the time of Stalin, we can see where and why these ideological regiemes break down. I would argue, for capitalism at least, that there never was this even attempt at real capitalism. Colonialism protected and expanded local markets at the expense of the colonized, America (re: smedly butler) basically used its army to enforce import/export monopolies, and in modern times, sets the trade policy of small nations trough the IMF and World Bank. The case of Haiti is exemplary, as they were only allowed access to American markets if they imported American rice (a commodity Haiti was trying to export).

Show me a state that has actually tried to break these ties between wealth and political power, and sure, then we can talk about the corrupting influence of capitalism. The problem as I see it is not that the ideal itself is unworkable, but that the psychology of power probably doesn't select for politicians who want to dismantle the institutions that keep them in power (whereas I would argue that the command economy in communism is actually unworkable on real grounds, and not just because people are crazy )

Originally posted by inimalist
I think he means the idea that capitalism has to lead to corporate oligarchy, which I'd also argue with you about. The collusion between government and the corporate elite which allow for the conditions as they exist today is counter to almost all philosophical capitalism, especially in terms of Smith/Rand/Friedman (though the latter two also sang loudly about deregulation, which might not be such a good idea) Which is exactly why Lenin said that Fascism is Capitalism in decline. This is why I don't buy liberal economics/libertarianism/non-eugenics based social darwinism. If you exist in a state of nature, people inevitably band together for mutual gain, make deals, and you end up in a state of war with the biggest warlord ruling as king and squashing all opposition. It's why we choose to live in a constitutional democratic republic. How is the market place any different?

I view this whole bullshit the Republicans and their on again, off again girlfriend Obama is pushing, that regulation is causing all the economic and labor problems being akin to the same "trust in lawlessness" crap. By their logic you could increase public safety by decriminalizing theft, rape, and murder.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
the Republicans and their on again, off again girlfriend Obama

Are you trying to insult or degrade him by associating him with femininity?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you trying to insult or degrade him by associating him with femininity? I was actually going more for a make certain people uncomfortable, flip/flop equated with gender bender kind of thing. Even people who gave me shit for calling him a snake during the election two years ago have gotta admit at this point that the guy's face should be in the dictionary under the definition for loyal opposition. I don't need to insult or degrade him. He degrades himself every time he tries to pass for a progressive or a liberal.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I was actually going more for a make certain people uncomfortable, flip/flop equated with gender bender kind of thing. Even people who gave me shit for calling him a snake during the election two years ago have gotta admit at this point that the guy's face should be in the dictionary under the definition for loyal opposition. I don't need to insult or degrade him. He degrades himself every time he tries to pass for a progressive or a liberal.

Oh I agree with Obama being a tool, you just shouldn't insult women.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh I agree with Obama being a tool, you just shouldn't insult women. Does this mean I can't call Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the rest of their ilk Republicunts?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Does this mean I can't call Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the rest of their ilk Republicunts?

No you can insult specific women for valid reasons. You just shouldn't insult womankind by using implications of femininity for traits you perceive as bad in man. Like how saying "Oh Obama, he's such a girl" implies there's something wrong with being a girl, at the very least that it is a bad thing for a man to behave like one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you trying to insult or degrade him by associating him with femininity? Out of all the things he said you would specifically go for that. laughcry

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Out of all the things he said you would specifically go for that. laughcry

Well we did the "Capitalism is evil, socialism but rebranded as social democracy is the way to go" - "NO, social democracy has its own failings, capitalism is better equipped for many things" - etc. enough times, I thought I'd address something else that bothers me, I assume he agrees anyways, it's a "left" issue, but most people just don't think about it all the time, I fail at it a lot, and I like when people point me to it (well not like, cause I am stubborn and arrogant, but my rational self is grateful, although my whole self won't show it).

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Which is exactly why Lenin said that Fascism is Capitalism in decline.

ah, yes, the man who grew up in a plutucratic/monarchistic-oligarchy of pre-soviet Russia, in an era where Capitalism didn't exist in any form yet (hell, colonialism and the age of empires was still the dominant political discourse in Europe), who eventually self-identified as being diametrically opposed to capitalism...

while we are at it, why not look to Rand as an expert on Syndaclism, Julian Assange on the necessity of state secrets, or MLK about the use of artillery on a battlefield.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If you exist in a state of nature, people inevitably band together for mutual gain, make deals, and you end up in a state of war with the biggest warlord ruling as king and squashing all opposition.

I never took you for a Hobbesian...

long story short, I would disagree, namely with the idea of a "state of nature" or any sort of essentialization of humans as "this is how we were in nature"

Originally posted by Darth Jello
How is the market place any different?

how is man in a free market different from man in a state of nature?

Originally posted by inimalist
I never took you for a Hobbesian...

long story short, I would disagree, namely with the idea of a "state of nature" or any sort of essentialization of humans as "this is how we were in nature"

You seriously can't see that ten men with clubs might do better than one man with a club? Even Rand was able to recognize that using a group was the only way to succeed against group.