(10-12-2017 11:53 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: Can one believe that leftist America doesn't have traditional American values AND America on the right is also largely behind the times?
(10-12-2017 11:53 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: Can one believe that leftist America doesn't have traditional American values AND America on the right is also largely behind the times?
Possibly. Please expound.
I don't think that leftist America has the values that we need to have leading the country. Both sides are playing identity politics right now, but I think the left started. They're falling farther and farther into wanting to "further define" free speech.
The right (and that includes this new right) wants to bring back things that I don't believe will have long term success. They want band-aids on these dying industries. I can understand why, but I think it's holding on something that will impede actual progress to those areas in the future.
Remember all the Democrats who rode Detroit, Camden, Oakland, Newark and New Orleans straight into the ground, bleating about "liberal values” all the way down?
Normal America has been named as a villain by the same class of "leftist values" liberal idiots who have been wrong on everything from slavery to the viability of communism to the election of Trump. No more. "Leftist values" as they have been defined today by progressive liberalism have almost universally been rejected in this county.
(10-12-2017 12:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: Remember all the Democrats who rode Detroit, Camden, Oakland, Newark and New Orleans straight into the ground, bleating about "liberal values” all the way down?
Normal America has been named as a villain by the same class of "leftist values" liberal idiots who have been wrong on everything from slavery to the viability of communism to the election of Trump. No more. "Leftist values" as they have been defined today by progressive liberalism have almost universally been rejected in this county.
I'm not sure liberalism brought those places down. Detroit was brought down because it didn't diversify it's industry and had generations of people in the same race. I don't know what leftist values Oakland or New Orleans had. They were Democrats but it these weren't leftist places. They had trouble with corruption even before our concept of "leftist" even existed. They also depended on old success to last forever. Something in common with the right of today.
My small hometown that had been largely conservative for a long time did the same thing. Families of the big companies made it very hard for other companies to come in and mess up their pool of workers. They were successful for decades and everybody worked at these places at one time or another. You had guys working with their fathers and grandfathers. Then JP Taylor stops processing Tobacco, the cotton mill closes, Roses becomes a shadow of itself, Coke decides to go with plastic and the Glass plant doesn't hire anyone new for 13 or so years, Tungsten Mines goes down, Carolina bagging no longer upholsters for GM and dies AND they all happened at around the same time. Sh*t happens.
Neither the right or left have winning records and they oversee situations that go bad all the time. Good management isn't necessarily a quality of either.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 01:31 PM by nomad2u2001.)
(10-12-2017 11:53 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: Can one believe that leftist America doesn't have traditional American values AND America on the right is also largely behind the times?
Possibly. Please expound.
I don't think that leftist America has the values that we need to have leading the country. Both sides are playing identity politics right now, but I think the left started. They're falling farther and farther into wanting to "further define" free speech.
The right (and that includes this new right) wants to bring back things that I don't believe will have long term success. They want band-aids on these dying industries. I can understand why, but I think it's holding on something that will impede actual progress to those areas in the future.
I see your point. When I said, "leftist values are truly American values and that the fly-over states are behind the times," my context was actually that the left assumes their values are correct and that the values of fly-over country are archaic.
My point was that fly-over states tend to represent the values most Americans hold as opposed to the convoluted moral code to which the leftist elitists hold.
Some just keep marrying younger spouses. For example Tom Cruise:
1. Mimi Rogers 5'9" born 1956 (6 years his senior and her 2nd marriage-after being married to someone older)
2. Nicole Kidman 5'11" born 1967 (her 2nd marriage was to someone 5 years younger than Cruise)
3. Katie Holmes 5'9" born 1978
rumored next Vanessa Kirby 6'0" born 1988 (she may be a year too old)
And we know a lot about wife 5. She will be 5'9" and born in 1999 or 2000 and be 37 or 38 years his junior. Wife 6, if he lives that long, is 6 or 7 years old now and will grow to between 5'11" and 6'1".
(made that comment about that weird movie Cruise and Kidman did and searched his wives and ran across all this data.)
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 09:54 PM by bullet.)
(10-12-2017 12:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: Remember all the Democrats who rode Detroit, Camden, Oakland, Newark and New Orleans straight into the ground, bleating about "liberal values” all the way down?
Normal America has been named as a villain by the same class of "leftist values" liberal idiots who have been wrong on everything from slavery to the viability of communism to the election of Trump. No more. "Leftist values" as they have been defined today by progressive liberalism have almost universally been rejected in this county.
I'm not sure liberalism brought those places down. Detroit was brought down because it didn't diversify it's industry and had generations of people in the same race. I don't know what leftist values Oakland or New Orleans had. They were Democrats but it these weren't leftist places. They had trouble with corruption even before our concept of "leftist" even existed. They also depended on old success to last forever. Something in common with the right of today.
My small hometown that had been largely conservative for a long time did the same thing. Families of the big companies made it very hard for other companies to come in and mess up their pool of workers. They were successful for decades and everybody worked at these places at one time or another. You had guys working with their fathers and grandfathers. Then JP Taylor stops processing Tobacco, the cotton mill closes, Roses becomes a shadow of itself, Coke decides to go with plastic and the Glass plant doesn't hire anyone new for 13 or so years, Tungsten Mines goes down, Carolina bagging no longer upholsters for GM and dies AND they all happened at around the same time. Sh*t happens.
Neither the right or left have winning records and they oversee situations that go bad all the time. Good management isn't necessarily a quality of either.
It can be tricky to be in gov't and try to strike the right balance between protectionism vs allowing progress to transform the economy for long term viability. Some jobs/industries need to go away when legitimate improvements occur. A company competing in today's market would deserve to go under if they utilize obsolete materials and technologies vs its peers. However, offshoring is not the same thing as the natural "creative destruction" we see where industries get better and smarter. You can have best run company in the world and have the lowest cost structure IF...foreign competitors had to follow the same regulations as the U.S. company AND pay its workers on a similar scale... AND still go belly up simply because a Chinese company making a poorer quality product can beat the price due to no gov't regulation and paying slave wages.
So is it fair for Nike to have shoes manufactured via "slave labor" in a 3rd world country when those shoes can be made in the U.S.?
And I get it that some industries are worth keeping while at the same time other low value/low tech industries would (should) not be a major loss to U.S. manufacturing since there is minimal value to keeping that industry around. Even with this though, it's hard to truly judge that.
I believe that at a minimum, the U.S. should not stub its own toe by not having competitive corporate tax structures vs the rest of the developed world. I think it would be an excellent point to consider "standardizing" costs across the board so that a country who has zero requirements to protect the environment, pay minimum wages and provide health insurance gets any unfair advantages against U.S. companies producing goods and services in the U.S.
(10-12-2017 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote: Some just keep marrying younger spouses. For example Tom Cruise:
1. Mimi Rogers 5'9" born 1956 (6 years his senior and her 2nd marriage-after being married to someone older)
2. Nicole Kidman 5'11" born 1967 (her 2nd marriage was to someone 5 years younger than Cruise)
3. Katie Holmes 5'9" born 1978
rumored next Vanessa Kirby 6'0" born 1988 (she may be a year too old)
And we know a lot about wife 5. She will be 5'9" and born in 1999 or 2000 and be 37 or 38 years his junior. Wife 6, if he lives that long, is 6 or 7 years old now and will grow to between 5'11" and 6'1".
(made that comment about that weird movie Cruise and Kidman did and searched his wives and ran across all this data.)
Tom Cruise is gay. His next wife will just be his next beard.
Trump is on wife #3. If they don't lock him up, #4 is his communications director. He's ready to trade in for a younger model. The current one won't sleep with him.