The 8th of May

[95coug]

Gee, you guys hate much? e, will you be glad when we are dead?

Now, to be fair, the beginnings of exploding public debt can be attributable to Ronald Reagan, who was not a baby boomer. In fact, the only balanced budget since then was attributable to a baby boomer (Clinton). Urban sprawl, pollution, well all that started long before baby boomers became decision makers.

As far as protesting - looking back, I think the #1 area of protest, the Vietnam War, was the right thing to do, and I bet the 58,000 Americans who died in it (most of them baby boomers) would agree if they were here today.

Finally, this whole generational thing is a little broad brushed anyway. A child born in 1946 (for instance, Donald Trump) is a baby boomer. A child born in 1964 (for instance, Kamala Harris) is a baby boomer. Not exactly cut from the same cloth.

Peace.

Depends how you look at the debt. As a percentage of GDP, yes it really took off under Reagan. If you look at it as pure dollars, we've never recovered from WWII, and the climb steepened continuously from the late 60s/early 70s.

Worth noting, I think, that the Boomers still firmly hold the reins in the US government. There hasn't been a GenX president, or even a serious candidate. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump are all Boomers, as are the overwhelming majority of their fellow executives. Using 1965 as the dividing line between Boomers and GenX (which seems pretty common), 83% of the senate is Boomers. The rest are GenX. In the House, even after significant upheaval in 2018, the Boomers still hold 54% of the seats, to GenX's 31 and the Millennials' 6. There are more seats held by the oldest members (pre-Boomers, born before 1945) than by the Millenials.

GenX is likely to get largely passed over politically. Partially because it's a pretty small group compared to the generations before & after, and partially because on the whole they're less politically active than those groups. Also, because it's hard to get very politically active when we're busy supporting both our Boomer parents and our Millenial kids.

 

[95coug]

The Beatles suck, too, by the way.

Amen to that. The original boy band, right down to the bad haircuts. At least they played instruments though...that puts them a tiny step ahead of the "bands" that emerged from the musical desert of the late 1990s.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Yet aren’t boomers also the first helicopter parents everyone talks about? So they are knocked for ignoring and hovering over their kids.

No, they aren't. Gen y are Hover parents.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Depends how you look at the debt. As a percentage of GDP, yes it really took off under Reagan. If you look at it as pure dollars, we've never recovered from WWII, and the climb steepened continuously from the late 60s/early 70s.

Worth noting, I think, that the Boomers still firmly hold the reins in the US government. There hasn't been a GenX president, or even a serious candidate. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump are all Boomers, as are the overwhelming majority of their fellow executives. Using 1965 as the dividing line between Boomers and GenX (which seems pretty common), 83% of the senate is Boomers. The rest are GenX. In the House, even after significant upheaval in 2018, the Boomers still hold 54% of the seats, to GenX's 31 and the Millennials' 6. There are more seats held by the oldest members (pre-Boomers, born before 1945) than by the Millenials.

Amen to that. The original boy band, right down to the bad haircuts. At least they played instruments though...that puts them a tiny step ahead of the "bands" that emerged from the musical desert of the late 1990s.

What's odd is that the Senate is in Republican hands. Doesn't quite match the "hippie" description of Boomers.

And for your Beatles haters - "Yesterday" and While my Guitar Gently Weeps" stand up to anything put out since.

 

[fingerdisco]

Amen to that. The original boy band, right down to the bad haircuts. At least they played instruments though...that puts them a tiny step ahead of the "bands" that emerged from the musical desert of the late 1990s.

Jeezus christmas...you may not enjoy that type of music, but saying they suck is moronic. Listen to Here Comes The Sun, Tomorrow Never Knows, Let it Be, and so on and so on. They created some brilliant music.

 

[CPtheCoug]

Boomers are far from the "last great" generation title lol

 

[95coug]

Jeezus christmas...you may not enjoy that type of music, but saying they suck is moronic. Listen to Here Comes The Sun, Tomorrow Never Knows, Let it Be, and so on and so on. They created some brilliant music.

I’ve heard what they have to offer. I typically change the station when they come on.

The only selection of theirs that I’ll typically turn up - Twist and Shout. Ferris Bueller chose wisely.

I Saw Her Standing There and Come Together are also tolerable. The rest of their library...no thanks. Particularly not the frustratingly repetitive ones like Let it Be, Hey Jude, and I Want to Hold Your Hand.

 

[BSpike76]

No, they aren't. Gen y are Hover parents.

Sorry, I know plenty of boomers who were helicopter parents. Their kids didn’t know how to do jack for themselves when they went off to college

 

[fingerdisco]

I’ve heard what they have to offer. I typically change the station when they come on.

The only selection of theirs that I’ll typically turn up - Twist and Shout. Ferris Bueller chose wisely.

I Saw Her Standing There and Come Together are also tolerable. The rest of their library...no thanks. Particularly not the frustratingly repetitive ones like Let it Be, Hey Jude, and I Want to Hold Your Hand.

That’s fine, and I get that it doesn’t suit your taste, but just sayin you don’t produce #1 hits and sell half a billion records worldwide like they did by sucking. I’m not a fan of Elvis’ music, but I’ll give the man credit cuz he had talent.

I’ll give you that their early stuff was bubble gum pop...they hit their stride when they found drugs...

 

[Coug1990]

Every generation has complained about those who came after them. This is not news.

 

[BSpike76]

Every generation has complained about those who came after them. This is not news.

And before them. That’s what makes parents so dumb.

 

[mikalalas]

Gee, you guys hate much? e, will you be glad when we are dead?

Now, to be fair, the beginnings of exploding public debt can be attributable to Ronald Reagan, who was not a baby boomer. In fact, the only balanced budget since then was attributable to a baby boomer (Clinton). Urban sprawl, pollution, well all that started long before baby boomers became decision makers.

As far as protesting - looking back, I think the #1 area of protest, the Vietnam War, was the right thing to do, and I bet the 58,000 Americans who died in it (most of them baby boomers) would agree if they were here today.

Finally, this whole generational thing is a little broad brushed anyway. A child born in 1946 (for instance, Donald Trump) is a baby boomer. A child born in 1964 (for instance, Kamala Harris) is a baby boomer. Not exactly cut from the same cloth.

Peace.

It was Carter, not Reagan who exploded debt.

Carter raised taxes sky high, and the government spending was sky high, and debt sky high.

Reagan in beginning cut the sky high taxes, which temporarily raised debt, until the tax cuts stimulated, created jobs, economy, created more wealth that was taxed at a lower rate, that combined with cuts of Carter's sky high spending, was balancing budget, lowering debt(budget wasnt balanced, no surpluses, etc, but it was gradually going in that direction, getting there, while dealing with Carter's Mess).

Margaret Thatcher, past Queens of England, and England's WW2 Prime Minister, all CUT TAXES, DID WHAT REAGAN DID, TO RESCUE ENGLAND FROM SOCIALISM, SPENDING, TAXATION, DEBT, BAD ECONOMY, ETC, AND BALANCED ENGLANDS BUDGET, LOWERED DEBT, CREATED GOOD ECONOMY.

I know it sounds counter intuitive how cutting taxes can lower debt, etc. But if cut sky high taxes, cut sky high spending, you create jobs, business, stimulate economy which creates more taxed wealth at a lower tax rate where that tax money amount is HIGHER THEN THE higher taxes tax money amount, and balances budget, lowers debt.

Reagan passed this on, Bush Sr Inherited this to where Bush Sr continued Reagan's policy, which lead to MODERATE, CENTRIST, DONT MESS WITH, FIX WHAT IS NOT BROKEN CLINTON, inheriting.

Then CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS, and Clinton passed WORK FIRST, WELFARE REFORM, DID NOT RAISE EARLIER LOWERED TAXES, DID NOT SPEND MORE, WHICH LED TO REPUBLICANS, CLINTON COMPLETELY BALANCING BUDGET.

Then Obama was as bad as Carter.

So I give BOTH credit to BOTH CLINTON and republicans.

 

[dgibbons]

Every generation has complained about those who came after them. This is not news.

Just for clarification, I’m complaining about the generation that came before.

 

[Coug1990]

It was Carter, not Reagan who exploded debt.

Carter raised taxes sky high, and the government spending was sky high, and debt sky high.

Reagan in beginning cut the sky high taxes, which temporarily raised debt, until the tax cuts stimulated, created jobs, economy, created more wealth that was taxed at a lower rate, that combined with cuts of Carter's sky high spending, was balancing budget, lowering debt(budget wasnt balanced, no surpluses, etc, but it was gradually going in that direction, getting there, while dealing with Carter's Mess).

Margaret Thatcher, past Queens of England, and England's WW2 Prime Minister, all CUT TAXES, DID WHAT REAGAN DID, TO RESCUE ENGLAND FROM SOCIALISM, SPENDING, TAXATION, DEBT, BAD ECONOMY, ETC, AND BALANCED ENGLANDS BUDGET, LOWERED DEBT, CREATED GOOD ECONOMY.

I know it sounds counter intuitive how cutting taxes can lower debt, etc. But if cut sky high taxes, cut sky high spending, you create jobs, business, stimulate economy which creates more taxed wealth at a lower tax rate where that tax money amount is HIGHER THEN THE higher taxes tax money amount, and balances budget, lowers debt.

Reagan passed this on, Bush Sr Inherited this to where Bush Sr continued Reagan's policy, which lead to MODERATE, CENTRIST, DONT MESS WITH, FIX WHAT IS NOT BROKEN CLINTON, inheriting.

Then CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS, and Clinton passed WORK FIRST, WELFARE REFORM, DID NOT RAISE EARLIER LOWERED TAXES, DID NOT SPEND MORE, WHICH LED TO REPUBLICANS, CLINTON COMPLETELY BALANCING BUDGET.

Then Obama was as bad as Carter.

So I give BOTH credit to BOTH CLINTON and republicans.

This is wrong on every level and is either not paying attention to actual history or trying to rewrite history.

 

[BSpike76]

This is wrong on every level and is either not paying attention to actual history or trying to rewrite history.

And Reagan raised taxes when the deficit exploded.

 

[Coug1990]

And Reagan raised taxes when the deficit exploded.

This is true. By the way, cutting taxes does not create jobs. Demand creates job. For example, you could have cut taxes all you want for companies that made typewriters and they were still going to go out of business. There was no demand. Around here, I do not need to explain where the demand went.

 

[fingerdisco]

This is wrong on every level and is either not paying attention to actual history or trying to rewrite history.

Forget it, he’s rolling

 

[Loyal Coug]

It was Carter, not Reagan who exploded debt.

Carter raised taxes sky high, and the government spending was sky high, and debt sky high.

Huh. The facts disagree.....

https://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/files/legacy/budget_deficit_or_surplus.jpg

 

[95coug]

Forget it, he’s rolling

I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

 

[fingerdisco]

I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

I know just the person

 

[mikalalas]

And Reagan raised taxes when the deficit exploded.

And as I explained Reagan/Bush Sr was cleaning up Carter's Mess, just like Leach cleaned up Wulf's Mess.

Yes sure debt was a problem under Reagan/Bush Sr, but that wouldnt have happened if Carter hadnt created a Mess, and altho debt was created by Reagan/Bush it did CLEAN UP carter's Mess(Not lack of debt(Good Economy, jobs, etc), and set the table to ENABLE BILL CLINTON, Republicans to use the GOOD ECONOMY, inherited, and not break, fix what was not broken, keep status quo, etc, to turn into surplus.

Carter's Mess, bad economy, etc, was so bad it took 3 presidential administrations to fix.

 

[mikalalas]

Huh. The facts disagree.....

https://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/files/legacy/budget_deficit_or_surplus.jpg

After reviewing your link, I was wrong about what I said about debt to a point.

Yeah Reagan, Bush SR TECHNICALLY had the worst debt.

But Reagan, Bush Sr were in fact cleaning up Carter's Mess.

And altho Reagan's/Bush Sr's tax cuts of Carter's epically high taxes, epically high spending, caused debt, deficits, IT DID CREATE GOOD ECONOMY, JOBS, ETC, that CLINTON and congressional republicans were able to use to create surpluses, eliminate debt, deficits.

Think of it this way.

Carter was Paul Graham.

Reagan/Bush were Dick Bennet(Dick cleaned up Grahams Mess, set table fpr Tony, but had LOSING record(like deficts, debt)

And Clinton, Congressional Republicans were like Tony Bennet(won 25 games, went to sweet 16), (eliminated debt, deficits, created surplus)

Also Carter is universally known as one of the WORST financial presidents in USA history.

 

[mikalalas]

This is true. By the way, cutting taxes does not create jobs. Demand creates job. For example, you could have cut taxes all you want for companies that made typewriters and they were still going to go out of business. There was no demand. Around here, I do not need to explain where the demand went.

Your right about the typewriter example you used.

BUT IN GENERAL, with GOOD COMPANIES, not typewriter example:

Cutting Epic Sky high Taxes CAN make it so that SOME good companies CAN create more jobs.

Its CALLED TRICKLE DOWN. Cutting sky high taxes, gives good companies more money, which allows good campanies to EXPAND, create more jobs, and higher paying jobs, etc.

 

[mikalalas]

As to why I posted what I posted:

If you make a POLITICAL COMMENT ABOUT REAGAN IN A POST, YOU MIGHT PROBABLY CAN GET A POLITICAL RESPONSE.

IF YOU DONT WANT A POLITICAL RESPONSE.

VERY SIMPLE NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

DO NOT MAKE POLITICAL COMMENTS LIKE LOYAL DID.

CAPS ADDED FOR EMPHASIS

 

[mikalalas]

As to why I posted what I posted:

If you make a POLITICAL COMMENT ABOUT REAGAN IN A POST, YOU MIGHT PROBABLY CAN GET A POLITICAL RESPONSE.

IF YOU DONT WANT A POLITICAL RESPONSE.

VERY SIMPLE NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

DO NOT MAKE POLITICAL COMMENTS LIKE LOYAL DID.

CAPS ADDED FOR EMPHASIS

also its obvious that some of us are going to disagree, have to agree to disagree, move on.

 

[Coug1990]

Your right about the typewriter example you used.

BUT IN GENERAL, with GOOD COMPANIES, not typewriter example:

Cutting Epic Sky high Taxes CAN make it so that SOME good companies CAN create more jobs.

Its CALLED TRICKLE DOWN. Cutting sky high taxes, gives good companies more money, which allows good campanies to EXPAND, create more jobs, and higher paying jobs, etc.

Trickle down is a fallacy. It has never worked as a job creator. Again, demand is what creates jobs. Taxes have little to do with job creation whether you lower or raise them.

There are many ways to raise capital, which includes selling stock or borrowing. If there is money to be made, companies will not leave money on the table. They will expand. That has nothing to do with taxes.

You can lower taxes for good companies all you want and they are just as likely to buy back stock, which is what we have seen with the latest tax cut.

 

[95coug]

Trickle down is a fallacy. It has never worked as a job creator. Again, demand is what creates jobs. Taxes have little to do with job creation whether you lower or raise them.

There are many ways to raise capital which includes selling stock or borrowing. If there is money to be made, companies will not leave money on the table. They will expand. That has nothing to do with taxes.

You can lower taxes for good companies all you want and they are just as likely to buy back stock, which is what we have seen with the latest tax cut.

Agreed, trickle down is a sham. Simple fact is that when you give money to the rich and the corporations...they keep it.

Reagan’s most effective job creation measures were a result of the massive increase in defense spending under him.

It’s not accurate to say he “cleaned up” Carter’s mess. He moved it to other areas, and buried it under so much additional mess and debt that you couldn’t find it anymore.

 

[CougEd]

Agreed, trickle down is a sham. Simple fact is that when you give money to the rich and the corporations...they keep it.

Reagan’s most effective job creation measures were a result of the massive increase in defense spending under him.

It’s not accurate to say he “cleaned up” Carter’s mess. He moved it to other areas, and buried it under so much additional mess and debt that you couldn’t find it anymore.

In theory when Reagan did it it made sense in some way. The money would trickle down and give the rest money to spend to create demand.

But even I said it worked in 1980 today is a way different world . The computer alone allows more jobs to be off-shored . Corporations are more profitable when they can get cheaper labor.

Then as you said upper management uses the tax break not to create new jobs but stock re-purchases. Gary Cohen found that out before the trump tax cuts when he was in a town hall type meeting with ceos and he asked the question how many would use the money to create new jobs. No one raised their hand.

If I make widgets I am not going to build a new widget factory in hopes that widget demand goes up. Demand goes up then I and everyone else builds the factory .

 

[Loyal Coug]

Trickle down is a fallacy. It has never worked as a job creator. Again, demand is what creates jobs. Taxes have little to do with job creation whether you lower or raise them.
.

Agreed, trickle down is a sham. Simple fact is that when you give money to the rich and the corporations...they keep it.

Reagan’s most effective job creation measures were a result of the massive increase in defense spending under him.
I.

In theory when Reagan did it it made sense in some way. The money would trickle down and give the rest money to spend to create demand.
But even I said it worked in 1980 .

Spot on twice. Trickle down economics failed then, and failed again under Bush and now under POS. Give the rich more money and hope they use it to hire the poor. Huh.

What really kills me about the deficit is that they like to track it now as a % of GDP. WTH? We spend more than we bring in. Our total debt keeps going up. Think of this on a personal level. You go further in debt every year. In effect, your mortgage goes up, not down. You have no retirement buildup. Only more that you owe. BUT, if the annual increase in debt is a smaller % of your income (your GDP), it's OK? "when I made $50K, I spent $55K. Now that I make $100K, I only spend $107K. So my deficit went down from 10% to 7% so I'm doing better."

What most people are not aware of is that there is no Social Security trust fund. That is just a paper number - there's no "fund" backing that up. Basically the US just used the surplus to pay other bills, and put an "IOU" in the cash reister. So in a couple of years when spending is more than receipts, you will have to raise taxes (or raise the deficit) to pay for the shortfall. And it will get bigger and bigger.

Another thing - it's not the federal government's (President's) job to control the economy. We aren't communists. The Fed has a role for sure. This is where it all goes wrong. Presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy - a lot of time it is just luck that they were elected when things were getting better (or worse). Like POS - the economy, unemployment, etc were all improving before he got elected. You could probably say the same about Clinton.

The federal governments basic job is to provide services that only they can (military, highways, SS) and to levy taxes to cover those services. They have gone way beyond their job description in terms of providing services, and have woefully failed in covering those services with taxes.

 

[kayak15]

Spot on twice. Trickle down economics failed then, and failed again under Bush and now under POS. Give the rich more money and hope they use it to hire the poor. Huh.

What really kills me about the deficit is that they like to track it now as a % of GDP. WTH? We spend more than we bring in. Our total debt keeps going up. Think of this on a personal level. You go further in debt every year. In effect, your mortgage goes up, not down. You have no retirement buildup. Only more that you owe. BUT, if the annual increase in debt is a smaller % of your income (your GDP), it's OK? "when I made $50K, I spent $55K. Now that I make $100K, I only spend $107K. So my deficit went down from 10% to 7% so I'm doing better."

What most people are not aware of is that there is no Social Security trust fund. That is just a paper number - there's no "fund" backing that up. Basically the US just used the surplus to pay other bills, and put an "IOU" in the cash reister. So in a couple of years when spending is more than receipts, you will have to raise taxes (or raise the deficit) to pay for the shortfall. And it will get bigger and bigger.

Another thing - it's not the federal government's (President's) job to control the economy. We aren't communists. The Fed has a role for sure. This is where it all goes wrong. Presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy - a lot of time it is just luck that they were elected when things were getting better (or worse). Like POS - the economy, unemployment, etc were all improving before he got elected. You could probably say the same about Clinton.

The federal governments basic job is to provide services that only they can (military, highways, SS) and to levy taxes to cover those services. They have gone way beyond their job description in terms of providing services, and have woefully failed in covering those services with taxes.

I was wondering when or if someone would bring up the social security trust fund. Lyndon Johnson started that little bit of deceit when he was unable to scrounge up enough money to pay for both his War on Poverty and the VietNam War. (No, Patty Murray, IOUs are not the same as real money.) The deficit is far worse than Congress or the Presidents have admitted. I'm O.K. I'll be feeding the worms before the stuff hits the fan. Those of you who are younger,,,,,,,,good luck, kids.

Not a big fan of George Bush the younger but one of his suggestions that I liked was his proposal to privatize social security. Take the money still remaining and the new money coming in and invest in corporate bonds instead of government ones. Went over like the proverbial lead balloon. Both parties panicked. "What!? Admit to our constituents that we have spent much of their retirement funds? No more slush fund for the fun stuff we want? Shut up, George."

 

[kayak15]

Huh. The facts disagree.....

https://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/files/legacy/budget_deficit_or_surplus.jpg

Yep, Reagan and his guys spent a bundle on defense spending which drove the USSR into economic near-collapse when they tried to keep up. Resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. One of the few times where such expenditure was worth the cost but, yes, Reagan's administration was responsible for a considerable deficit.

p.s. The fact that this thread started with outdoor sex and is where it stands now is a prime example of how these conversations tend to wander in completely unpredictable directions. I find it rather amusing.

 

[Loyal Coug]

I was wondering when or if someone would bring up the social security trust fund. Lyndon Johnson started that little bit of deceit when he was unable to scrounge up enough money to pay for both his War on Poverty and the VietNam War. (No, Patty Murray, IOUs are not the same as real money.) The deficit is far worse than Congress or the Presidents have admitted. I'm O.K. I'll be feeding the worms before the stuff hits the fan. Those of you who are younger,,,,,,,,good luck, kids.

Not a big fan of George Bush the younger but one of his suggestions that I liked was his proposal to privatize social security. Take the money still remaining and the new money coming in and invest in corporate bonds instead of government ones. Went over like the proverbial lead balloon. Both parties panicked. "What!? Admit to our constituents that we have spent much of their retirement funds? No more slush fund for the fun stuff we want? Shut up, George."

What's funny is if you google the "trust fund"and many articles dispute the truth that there is no fund. Then you get down to the bottom and they slip in that the "fund" is invested in US debt instruments. So I guess the good news is that some of the accumulated national debt is owed to our retirees and not to China, but it is still debt that can only be paid through tax increases.

So when the excess of revenues over payments goes away (next year), either taxes have to go up, or the deficit goes up by the difference. No magical "fund" to tap. Just go farther in debt.

 

[CougEd]

Yep, Reagan and his guys spent a bundle on defense spending which drove the USSR into economic near-collapse when they tried to keep up. Resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. One of the few times where such expenditure was worth the cost but, yes, Reagan's administration was responsible for a considerable deficit.

p.s. The fact that this thread started with outdoor sex and is where it stands now is a prime example of how these conversations tend to wander in completely unpredictable directions. I find it rather amusing.

And it was worth it to the point where our candidate feels comfortable enough to get opposition research from an adversary that has nukes pointed at us and think it is ok.

 

[FnuLnu]

Only you could turn May 8th into a referendum on Jim Walden. "Honey, hooray hooray it's the 8th of May....oh shoot, big ole downer. That is the generation Walden coached, no outdoor fun for us. Talk about a cold shower....

Missed that one too completely initially....but check the calendar.

The day before is the fall of Germany.

And isn't the Wulff era essentially the Walden Second Reich?

And doesn't low IQ Walden disciple Wulff without the toupee look a bit like low IQ flunky Rudolf Hess?

The Hess peace mission flight to Britain in 1941 sure looks as well thought out as Wulff's decision to play a sick Jeff Tuel in the Idaho State game blowout win.

(Perhaps one of the alt-Walden posters here will compare the Seattle Oregon State game to Stalingrad? When they aren't badmouthing the AD that is)

Anyway... back to talk about naked 50 year olds and Jimmy Carter

 

[fingerdisco]

Agreed, trickle down is a sham. Simple fact is that when you give money to the rich and the corporations...they keep it.

Reagan’s most effective job creation measures were a result of the massive increase in defense spending under him.

It’s not accurate to say he “cleaned up” Carter’s mess. He moved it to other areas, and buried it under so much additional mess and debt that you couldn’t find it anymore.

Taxing corporations gives them the impetus to reinvest in its workers and infrastructure rather than give that money to the government. Back in the day when this occurred, the CEO made 20-30 times what the average worker made, now it’s something like 300 times the average worker. Take those taxes away and they are just going to pocket the money.

 

[kougkurt]

How bout the 8th of May

 

[95coug]

Missed that one too completely initially....but check the calendar.

The day before is the fall of Germany.

And isn't the Wulff era essentially the Walden Second Reich?

And doesn't low IQ Walden disciple Wulff without the toupee look a bit like low IQ flunky Rudolf Hess?

The Hess peace mission flight to Britain in 1941 sure looks as well thought out as Wulff's decision to play a sick Jeff Tuel in the Idaho State game blowout win.

(Perhaps one of the alt-Walden posters here will compare the Seattle Oregon State game to Stalingrad? When they aren't badmouthing the AD that is)

Anyway... back to talk about naked 50 year olds and Jimmy Carter

I can’t bring myself to compare any WSU regime - no matter how deluded - to one as completely reprehensible as the nazis. But, there’s also no comparison of that game to Stalingrad. The Chief difference being. That with slightly better coaching the nazis could have won at Stalingrad. The Cougs had no chance of winning that game.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

First, this is easy to google. Many sources. If you can't find it, you are not trying.

Second, WSU has always claimed ownership of the origin of the holiday, though UI, CWU and EWU (and perhaps others, but those are the only ones that I recall) have at various times insisted that it was really a multi-campus idea rather than solely originating in Pullman.

You can imagine that various portions of the national media jumped on it when the idea went public. My admittedly limited memory says that Dr. Demento (and the King Biscuit Flour Hour), Rolling Stone and even the Village Voice discussed it. Time was when a trip to the bar on the street down below Stephenson (I don't remember what that bar was called back then) would let you see various clippings on the subject.

Finally, as for the Boomers....speaking as one, I find us to be an interesting dichotomy between selfish (NIMBY-ism being a good example) and socially concerned. I see a lot of how we were our youth in the millennials of today, and I find that it is pretty easy to relate with millennials when you approach them with that mind set.

 

[FnuLnu]

The cutoff for 'Boomers' has always been pretty murky. I'm at the tailend but have absolutely nothing in common with someone born in the 40s or 50's. They were the flower children and the entitled offspring of the Greatest Generation. My parents were Depression Babies too young to serve in the Big One. And I'm too young to have been affected by Vietnam, other than what came on the news after Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers - more of Baby Buster than a Boomer.

The Beatles suck, too, by the way.

The cultural impact the Irish Rovers had on Spokane can never be overestimated.

Next time less Brother Jed and more Sister Cindy

 

[HCoug]

As far as protesting - looking back, I think the #1 area of protest, the Vietnam War, was the right thing to do, and I bet the 58,000 Americans who died in it (most of them baby boomers) would agree if they were here today.

You suggest a broad consensus among the 58,000+ who made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam, apparently to try to support a simplistic view of a complex and contentious issue.

Knowing the mindset of many before they were unfortunately included in that painful statistic, and others of us who survived, I have to disagree.

Your opinion of the Vietnam era protests is shared or opposed by many, for a variety of personal reasons and motives, as it will no doubt always be. But it is not validated by an imaginary consensus of the now-voiceless 58,000+.