Page 2 of 2
Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:25 pm
by dragoncar
Pointedstick wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
I think the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment of years past by Hillary is just symbolic to me of the pending downfall of America, at least the America that I knew and treasured.
... Mountaineer
That's just a part of getting old, I think. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who had great grandchildren who didn't think the world had gone to pot. You live long enough, and eventually you'll see all the things that were sacred and treasured when you were a child be profaned and discarded. But society goes on. It's all a part of the natural evolution of cultures.

Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:27 am
by madbean
Pointedstick wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
I think the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment of years past by Hillary is just symbolic to me of the pending downfall of America, at least the America that I knew and treasured.
... Mountaineer
That's just a part of getting old, I think. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who had great grandchildren who didn't think the world had gone to pot. You live long enough, and eventually you'll see all the things that were sacred and treasured when you were a child be profaned and discarded. But society goes on. It's all a part of the natural evolution of cultures.
I don't think Fred Reed has grand kids yet, nor do I, but I can relate to his distant observation from his perch in Mexico. He says "I still love America. Can someone tell me where I can find it?".
I guess where one man sees evolution, another sees entropy.
Meanwhile, back to the original subject, this is hilarious.
On planning Hillary's trip to Chipotle....
https://youtu.be/BjWXRyZqRps
Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:54 am
by Pointedstick
madbean wrote:
I guess where one man sees evolution, another sees entropy.
I think it depends on whether the "evolution" is towards or away from socio-cultural institutions and mores that you approve of. Since you're more likely than not to look back on the state of your society during childhood with fondness, as that society changes, you're likely going to disapprove. The challenge, I think, it separating simple nostalgia for things that maybe weren't actually so great (especially for people who were not you) from the things that have truly worsened. As usual, I think the truth is somewhere between the two and depends heavily on your abilities and perspectives.
Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:10 pm
by moda0306
That was pretty damn funny.
Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:10 pm
by clacy
That was hilarious, thanks
Simonjester wrote:
i am almost a victim of poe's law...
if they had claimed it was a reenactment of the actual minutes of a Hilary meeting i would have bought it as true....
Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:28 pm
by Benko
madbean wrote:
I guess where one man sees evolution, another sees entropy.
Lifecycles include both. The life cycle of an organism includes, birth, maturation, downward slide and death.
Why should societies be any different?
Nothing lasts forever, though we may delude ourselves into thinking we (e.g. US) are differernt.
And I suddenly understand whoever it is here that speaks favorably of monarchies and such, but that doesn't solve the long run problem either.
Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 12:01 am
by MachineGhost
MangoMan wrote:
I used to watch American Idol with my teenage daughter back around 2008, and the process of the election of the Idol was the same as the election of the POTUS. The most talented contestant didn't necessarily win, the most popular one did. Simon Cowell's opinion didn't count, only the SMS votes of the American public.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the rank and file.
Re: Hillary's platform?
Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 12:07 am
by MachineGhost
moda0306 wrote:
But at the very least, this started with George Well he seems like a good guy to get a beer with Bush. Absolutely no substance. Just folksy, affable charm. Obama's vague-yet-rousing (to some) speeches aside, one of his biggest problems (politically) is that he's too stammery, detailed and professorial when being questioned... not too folksy like the "popular kid."
No, at the very least, it started with JFK back in 1960. He connected and mingled with voters in person, ESPECIALLY women voters, and did an end run around the Establishment in a way no other politician had ever done before. And licked Tricky Dick's sweat on TV to boot! That was the beginning of the end of statemanship. Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama were exactly good in the way that JFK was. It's show business.