Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,478
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Retired Farmer

Princeton, KY

#36973 Jul 13, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post. My take is that the Republicans had to buy the religious right's votes by incorporating their beliefs into their platform. The RR has yet to understand that they are being used by the Republicans. However, it is beginning to infringe upon the ability of the Republicans to find a moderate stance and hence causing them to lose stature. They are so tied to the RR that they cannot break free and have been defined by them. Either they will move to a mainstream platform or they will become marginalized.
Not exactly, but close. The Republican party -- that is the old Republican Party of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan -- reached out to the then fairly moderate Christian Right in the 1980s. That's how the Republicans managed to take over the South. For their part the Democrats, who dominated the South from the end of Reconstruction until the 1980s, went through a phase where they did the opposite of today's Republican move to the far right. After the Carter years, the Democrats moved too far to the left to keep the loyalty of religious rural people, not just in the South but also in the Plains states and Midwest.

At the same time, a small clique of wealthy libertarians who adhered to the economic thinking of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard, were trying to move Republican economic thinking to the right. They would never have had a chance except that a preacher, Gary North, came up with what he called "Christian" or "Biblical" economics that was pure libertarian laissez-faire Social Darwinist economics wrapped in Bible verses. North opposes all forms of welfare, even traditional Christian charity. In North's view, poor people are poor because of their evil and indolent ways. The televangelist Pat Robertson picked North's ideas up, sanitized them, and popularized them by associating them with the traditional Puritan work ethic.

Libertarians and the Christian Right then reached an unlikely compromise. The wealthy Libertarians, who care most about economics, sacrificed their ideas about human freedom to the Christian Right's "moral" issues. The Christian Right sacrificed its traditional views about charity, social responsibility, and social justice to the Libertarians economics.

The two allies then hijacked the Republican Party -- the Christian Right working at the grass roots and the rich libertarians from the top down.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36974 Jul 13, 2013
And Ayn Rand was an atheist.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36975 Jul 13, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly, but close. The Republican party -- that is the old Republican Party of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan -- reached out to the then fairly moderate Christian Right in the 1980s. That's how the Republicans managed to take over the South. For their part the Democrats, who dominated the South from the end of Reconstruction until the 1980s, went through a phase where they did the opposite of today's Republican move to the far right. After the Carter years, the Democrats moved too far to the left to keep the loyalty of religious rural people, not just in the South but also in the Plains states and Midwest.
At the same time, a small clique of wealthy libertarians who adhered to the economic thinking of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard, were trying to move Republican economic thinking to the right. They would never have had a chance except that a preacher, Gary North, came up with what he called "Christian" or "Biblical" economics that was pure libertarian laissez-faire Social Darwinist economics wrapped in Bible verses. North opposes all forms of welfare, even traditional Christian charity. In North's view, poor people are poor because of their evil and indolent ways. The televangelist Pat Robertson picked North's ideas up, sanitized them, and popularized them by associating them with the traditional Puritan work ethic.
Libertarians and the Christian Right then reached an unlikely compromise. The wealthy Libertarians, who care most about economics, sacrificed their ideas about human freedom to the Christian Right's "moral" issues. The Christian Right sacrificed its traditional views about charity, social responsibility, and social justice to the Libertarians economics.
The two allies then hijacked the Republican Party -- the Christian Right working at the grass roots and the rich libertarians from the top down.
Yes, but the Christians and Libertarians could not have done so without the desperate need of the Republicans desire for votes. Only by the use of religion, fear, prejudice, and corporate influence could the Republicans have gained power. They are straddled with all the baggage that came with all that and no way but to continue to try to meld religion and politics. They have had a lot of help from the RW media but seem to be losing ground as more folks begin to understand how they sold their soul.

The Democrats did go too far to the left with some things but have not had to sell out to any group, yet. Even though the conservatives have tried to negatively associate them with such 'undesirable'* things as the environment, women and gay rights. However, the nation has been held hostage to the far right religions and money barons of the banks and corporations. Unfortunately we as a nation have been held back because of the unreasonable labeling of socialism to any government endeavor on health care or aid to the poor.

My take is that the nation as a whole will come to its senses and move to a more moderate society.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36976 Jul 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was a joke that went right by you.
My IP address was shown as Soso, MS.
What's your question? Is it a stupid one?
i guess you'd know if it was or not.....if you could read and comprehend.

psssst.....doesn't reallt matter what town your isp shows in "jaspa" county. everyone is poor white trash or lazy bros-n-hoes in that part of the country. uneducated, too! you're a poster child,'maggy'. lol

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36977 Jul 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>hahahaha
SOSO, MS!
"to afraid" or what?????
Yours, HELL, WI???
spell 'chekkerz' are gay.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36978 Jul 13, 2013
global warming is the religion of the mainstream idiotic dummed down neo-marxist american.....or the willful idiots.
NOWAY

Houston, TX

#36979 Jul 13, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
global warming is ..
.. but you are ignored because you live in Hell, WI.

Psst, you did not get it the first time.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36980 Jul 13, 2013
NOWAY wrote:
<quoted text>.. but you are ignored because you live in Hell, WI.
Psst, you did not get it the first time.
psssst.....i never was hoodwinked in the first place, dummy.

pssst...you're lying again.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36981 Jul 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Feel free to post your stuff.
as if anyone needed your approval, turgid little fuque?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36982 Jul 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Your name is stirring, stunning to some.
really? are you gay?
Retired Farmer

Princeton, KY

#36983 Jul 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the Christians and Libertarians could not have done so without the desperate need of the Republicans desire for votes. Only by the use of religion, fear, prejudice, and corporate influence could the Republicans have gained power. They are straddled with all the baggage that came with all that and no way but to continue to try to meld religion and politics. They have had a lot of help from the RW media but seem to be losing ground as more folks begin to understand how they sold their soul.
The Democrats did go too far to the left with some things but have not had to sell out to any group, yet. Even though the conservatives have tried to negatively associate them with such 'undesirable'* things as the environment, women and gay rights. However, the nation has been held hostage to the far right religions and money barons of the banks and corporations. Unfortunately we as a nation have been held back because of the unreasonable labeling of socialism to any government endeavor on health care or aid to the poor.
My take is that the nation as a whole will come to its senses and move to a more moderate society.
Sort of, but not quite. True, the Republican Party reached out to the Christian Right for votes. They are, after all, a political party and want to win elections. To do that they have to appeal to voters and give them what they want. There is nothing different or wrong with that. However, you seem to be confusing the "Republican Party" with the libertarian "Tea Party" element that infiltrated it from the top. The old Republican Party was a center right entity led by men like Bob Dole.(See his comments)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/opinion/bob...

That old Republican Party's base was conservative (in the old definition of conservative, meaning cautious, not the new libertarian one) businessmen, small merchants, farmers from the Plains and rural Midwest, etc. Its basic political-economic philosophy was based on Eisenhower's "Middle Way" ideas.

Several things happened to transform that old Republican Party into what it is today. First, the Democrats went too far to the left in the 1980s in an effort to appeal to young voters and minorities. At the local level in the rural Bible Belt (the phenomenon is identified with the South, but it happened in the rural West and Midwest too), every county had a "Boss Hogg" who ruled the roost in the Democratic Party from the end of the Civil War until the 1980s. Contrary to the image presented by the Dukes of Hazzard, the Boss Hoggs, who were the rural equivalent of a big city ward boss, were usually not corrupt. They were honest men who worked for the interests of their communities. They were also fairly middle-of-the-road. They supported the status quo up to a point, but they also supported the New Deal tradition. Problem was, they held on too long. The rural Democratic party became a closed good-old-boys' club. Young people were not admitted to the club. So when Ronald Reagan came along the young people turned to the Republicans, which most of the time did not even have a local organization in the South.

(will continue later)
Retired Farmer

Princeton, KY

#36984 Jul 14, 2013
Another aspect of the "Boss Hogg" tradition was that the position of "Boss Hogg" was usually hereditary. In the county where I grew up it was passed down from father to son in the same family for 4 or 5 generations. However, the last generation of Boss Hoggs, the ones who ruled from the end of World War II until the 1980s, educated their sons well. Those sons moved out of the local area and did not take their fathers' places. That created a leadership vacuum at the local level.

By default leadership fell to the only other group with local influence: the preachers. As usually happens, leadership among the preachers fell to the most extreme fundamentalists among them. Then -- and I do not know how this happened -- during the Clinton years the preachers (who previously were mostly New Deal Democrats) switched parties and became Republicans. The preachers very quickly took over the leadership role in the local Republican organizations. They then proceeded to brand the "Middle Way" Republicans RINOs and drove us out of the party. At the same time, Gary North's economics was taking hold, meshing with that of the libertarians, and filtering down by way of Pat Robertson and religious leaders like the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land that followed his lead.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36985 Jul 14, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort of, but not quite. True, the Republican Party reached out to the Christian Right for votes. They are, after all, a political party and want to win elections. To do that they have to appeal to voters and give them what they want. There is nothing different or wrong with that. However, you seem to be confusing the "Republican Party" with the libertarian "Tea Party" element that infiltrated it from the top. The old Republican Party was a center right entity led by men like Bob Dole.(See his comments)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/opinion/bob...
That old Republican Party's base was conservative (in the old definition of conservative, meaning cautious, not the new libertarian one) businessmen, small merchants, farmers from the Plains and rural Midwest, etc. Its basic political-economic philosophy was based on Eisenhower's "Middle Way" ideas.
Several things happened to transform that old Republican Party into what it is today. First, the Democrats went too far to the left in the 1980s in an effort to appeal to young voters and minorities. At the local level in the rural Bible Belt (the phenomenon is identified with the South, but it happened in the rural West and Midwest too), every county had a "Boss Hogg" who ruled the roost in the Democratic Party from the end of the Civil War until the 1980s. Contrary to the image presented by the Dukes of Hazzard, the Boss Hoggs, who were the rural equivalent of a big city ward boss, were usually not corrupt. They were honest men who worked for the interests of their communities. They were also fairly middle-of-the-road. They supported the status quo up to a point, but they also supported the New Deal tradition. Problem was, they held on too long. The rural Democratic party became a closed good-old-boys' club. Young people were not admitted to the club. So when Ronald Reagan came along the young people turned to the Republicans, which most of the time did not even have a local organization in the South.
(will continue later)
I agree with a good part of that. However, it was more the high inflation rate and the failed rescue in Iran that determined the election of Reagan. The Feds were experimenting with a different way of controlling inflation by adjusting the supply of money rather than by controlling the interest rate. Things got out of hand, not because of federal spending or President Carter, a beltway outsider, but because he didn't play ball with the good old boys.

I am not defending the actions of the Democrats. As a mater of fact, I was a voting Republican up till the second term of President Reagan. The Republican Party lost its way and sold out to the vested interests with a complete reversal of representation of the independent businessmen and rural areas. They have only held on to the rural areas by utilizing religion and prejudices. That is beginning to crumble.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36986 Jul 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>as if anyone needed your approval,[name calling]?
What's it to you, rogue?

Why did you miss me?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36987 Jul 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>really? are you gay?
LOL. You are in the wrong forum.

You are desperate, aren't you?
Retired Farmer

Princeton, KY

#36988 Jul 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with a good part of that. However, it was more the high inflation rate and the failed rescue in Iran that determined the election of Reagan. The Feds were experimenting with a different way of controlling inflation by adjusting the supply of money rather than by controlling the interest rate. Things got out of hand, not because of federal spending or President Carter, a beltway outsider, but because he didn't play ball with the good old boys.

I am not defending the actions of the Democrats. As a mater of fact, I was a voting Republican up till the second term of President Reagan. The Republican Party lost its way and sold out to the vested interests with a complete reversal of representation of the independent businessmen and rural areas. They have only held on to the rural areas by utilizing religion and prejudices. That is beginning to crumble.
I disagree.

First, yes, the Iran hostage situation and inflation were key to Carter's defeat and Reagan's victory. But as to voter reaction to the Fed's monetary policies, it has been my observation that most people here are only vaguely aware of what the policies are. Sure, they dislike the results - or lack thereof - but they don't comprehend the policy itself. Sometimes what they think it is is directly opposite of what it really is.

As for your second paragraph, the structure that the Libertarian / Christian Right alliance has built is now the Republican Party. The old party is gone, its members either died off or been forced out/left in disgust. The new structure is very strong, a unit that is stronger than the sum of its component parts. Each part both reinforces all of the other parts and holds each one in place. If one part was to break, the result would, I admit, cause the whole structure to come crashing down. There is only one thing that I see that could cause such a crackup, however: a fight between the Christian Right and the Libertarians. If the Libertarians were to back away from the Christian Right's "moral" issues, meaning opposition to abortion and gay marriage, there would most likely be a brawl. The Republican party might actually split the way that the Democrats did in 1860. I can't see the Christian Right backing away from Libertarian economics. Most of them just aren't smart enough to recognize their own self interest in that regard.

And there is the matter of the Democrats letting their own urban-based left wing keep on doing things that reinforces the siege mentality that has taken root among rural people.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#36989 Jul 14, 2013
Retired farmer and Bozo, this thread is 'supposed' to be about the alleged speed up of Glowbull warming.

Just saying.
Retired Farmer

Princeton, KY

#36990 Jul 14, 2013
Earthling-1 wrote:
Retired farmer and Bozo, this thread is 'supposed' to be about the alleged speed up of Glowbull warming.
Just saying.
Human induced global warming is a political issue in the United States. It is therefore pointless and futile to discuss it without discussing the political context. To understand that political context it is necessary to understand the whole political mosaic.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36991 Jul 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Why did you miss me?
no.....i said goodbye when i flushed you down the toilet, little turd.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#36992 Jul 14, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Human induced global warming is a political issue in the United States. It is therefore pointless and futile to discuss it without discussing the political context. To understand that political context it is necessary to understand the whole political mosaic.
"human induced global warming" is entirely political.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you find smoking attractive? (No posts about... 3 min Girly girl 7
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 19 min JOEL 69,974
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 54 min KiMare 50,588
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr wojar 179,265
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr sonicfilter 1,124,815
Chicago a model city 5 hr Just me 6
Father Of Hans Peterson Speaks Out (Oct '07) 6 hr Getagrip 44
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]