who, during Reagan's presidency ushered in a mean-spiritededness & arrogance never seen before....At some point during his presidency, moderates were gone & most Republicans went way too far to the right (especially on social issues) & alienated many from the party...And subsequently, discourse went out the window as well...
As far as Bork hearings, I agree w/you somewhat, but remember Bork was so out of the mainstream that (I think it was 7-8 Republican senators) ALSO voted against confiriming him...Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) strongly opposed Bork....
My thinking is that it was the Bourke and Thomas hearings. Conservatives didn't regard liberalism well at the time, but with these two democratic actions, minimum trust completely broke down and bipartisanship was buried.
It started when Rupert Murdoch got his way, killed Equal Time and the Fairness Doctrine, then hired a disgruntled left wing online talk show host out of Kansas,named Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was working for the Kansas City Royals baseball team at the time. Limbaugh was hired AS AN ENTERTAINER to do a conservative talk radio program for Murdoch, who then made a deal with Clear Channel to offer the program free of charge to syndicators.
That, imho, is Ground Zero. It all got nasty afterwards.
Dude, the Kansas City Royals are in Missouri, not Kansas.
...sort of like when Bluto opined that the "Germans bombed Pearl Harbor".
Murdoch wasn't and isn't involved with Limbaugh's business.
Limbaugh left the KC Royals in the 70's, then worked in radio for 8 or 9 years until Ed McLaughlin gave him a spin on national radio. It was Roger Ailes who later produced the TV show. Ailes later worked for Murdoch at FOX News, so maybe that's where you got the connection.
As far as the Fairness Doctrine is concerned, you can thank the 80's U.S Supreme and Appeals Court. Through a series of rulings, they essentially told the Executive to repair the Doctrine. The FCC then made the changes and the Appeals court (AKA Robert Bork, not Bourke, Z) upheld challenges. I really doubt they all were all controlled by the puppeteer Murdoch.
Fox and Clear Channel have gotten pretty cozy lately. Fox News is now the new network news source for CC.
-- Modified on 12/5/2007 6:30:21 PM
who, during Reagan's presidency ushered in a mean-spiritededness & arrogance never seen before....At some point during his presidency, moderates were gone & most Republicans went way too far to the right (especially on social issues) & alienated many from the party...And subsequently, discourse went out the window as well...
As far as Bork hearings, I agree w/you somewhat, but remember Bork was so out of the mainstream that (I think it was 7-8 Republican senators) ALSO voted against confiriming him...Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) strongly opposed Bork....
when some Americans objected to being fleesed by the blind followers of Old Uncle Joe Stalin and those sheep herders started crying foul every time someone had the audacity to disagree with their propaganda and manipulation. The neo commies should learn that shearing the sheep and skinning the sheep are two different things.
When conservatives began to ruin the country.
proposition of the neo-libs that said: "Free speech means saying anything you want to say as long as we give it our pre-approval."?
In California. Reagan was able to pick up on the movement and take it national. Funny I have to inform a conservative about a landmark of the Conservative movement. But History is one of those "Liberal Arts."
-- Modified on 12/5/2007 5:44:12 PM
sorry my sense of humor wasn't conveyed. What California does or has done is generally not of much interest to me. They seem to be on the Wacko fringe. History is a "Liberal Art"? I though it was history distortion that was their art. I still believe that government should serve the people, not the other way around. I know that is not the liberal way but it is the American way, at least in name.
Nor should it be, with you living somewhere in the midwest... (don't remember, isn't really material)... but where I think you WOULD and should be interested, is this:
The US enjoys the most productive economy in the world. That's a fact.
California by itself, is one of the eight most productive economies in the world, usually right ahead of or behind France. Depends on how good the years wine production is. Really.
Without California, the US drops from first, to third behind China and Russia.
California receives 78 cents for every dollar we give the feds in taxes. the other 22 cents is bled out of California to support the parasite states, many if not all of whom would be considered Red States (for voting & partisan purposes).
We wackos out here in artsy fartsy Bluestate California have been supporting right wing red state parasites for too long. Just wait till Arnold declares California's independence so he can be President of Califawnya, solves the immigration problem by merging with Mexico and becoming the worlds 4th largest economy and #1 producer of margaritas, movies, and day laborers. And then theres all that Mexican oil we can sell to the US for cheaper than OPEC or Putin or Chavez...undercutting THEIR markets...
California's time is coming soon.
Be afraid, harryj... be very very afraid... (big mischevious grin...)
I couldn't resist taking a shot at your State. You have some fine things to be proud of but a whole lot to be ashamed of too. You folks lived a pampered life, I doubt you could survive in the Midwest.
who has lived in about thirty of the fifty states.
Why would you say that you doubt that you (either doc or Californians in general could survive in the Midwest?
The Religious Conservatives got very angry at the Pagan groups who forced religion out of schools..And the Pagan groups got more angry because we still have Praying Presidents.. Tolerance is the key that many do not possess..And that goes for Bible Thumpers and the Pagans..
That has nothing to do with pagans, it has to do with defending the First Amendment. Any religious person should be pleased with that the Courts baned government-sponsored prayer in the public school because the religion the government chooses might not be yours.
"Any" religious person should be pleased with that the Courts baned government-sponsored prayer in the public school because the religion the government chooses might not be yours.
I was glad I didn't have Religion class in ninth grade so t doesn't bother me but I think there are a lot more of the "ANY" religious people who were not pleased than you realize..
Force feeding children the religion of other people's choice(government or otherwise) is not one of them.
I too was force fed religion as a child and it has only been in the last decade or so that I have felt safe in telling the religious zealots where to stick it. I've always felt this way, but telling the church to go fuck themselves has not always been the healthiest of behaviors here in the bible belt.
-- Modified on 12/5/2007 2:17:23 PM
It wasn't a pagan, it was an Atheist Madeline Murray-O'Hair who brought the case in court. If you read some of the hate mail she got (the ones that weren't smeared with excrement) you'd doubt that prayer in schools had been supported by good people, nor tolerant people at that.
O'Hair later founded the American Atheists, not the Reorganized Church of Thor. She didn't keep graven images in her desk drawer, either.
The only thing the ruling disallowed was prayer led by teachers, other school employees, school sponsored parties. It doesn't outlaw the class praying before the beginning of class, it doesn't disallow students to meet during recess, it just disallows the school from calling for it.
In other words, democratic prayer OK. Prayer demanded by an authority figure not sponsored by the public dole? No. It's very American.
The fact remains millions hate Bush because he talks too much religion.. Since I went to Catholic schools through eigth grade I learned it is easy for me to zone Bible thumping out just like a infomercial..The opposite fact is millions of Bible thumpers hate the non religious just because they don't see the Lord..Maybe you only talk to those that agree with you spiritually but I am exposed to Religious and Atheist on a daily basis and frankly I don't give a damn either way because neither one is a threat to me. Comprende??
I support your right to believe as you believe. But as a Jew, I resent a belief system contrary to mine being force fed my children. This is not a Christian country, despite all your and the Religious Rights efforts to spin it so.
Support for one religion over another must never be the agenda of the State. That's a Dogma theocracy they have running rampant all over the Middle East.
Is that what you want for this country? To be a third rate backwards thinking country occupied by barbaric and oppressive leadership? Must I accept the love of Jesus in my heart or I will be flayed and slaughtered like a cow?
You'd enjoy that one, wouldn't you.
Although few will admit it, exept maybe here in Georgia, but the number of people that would love to have a religious state, sort of a christian version of the ME is downright, fucking scary.
I am no fan of the whiny, socialist, loony left, but in all fairness, you guys are the only thing standing between me and a nonsecular government. I don't want the left to have any real control, but I do know that without someone to stand up to the religious right, life in this country would be scary beyond contemplation.
thats a figment of your imagination,
just say No to the propaganda
-- Modified on 12/6/2007 12:42:00 PM
oh Bill, there you go again...
This is my original Post:
The Religious Conservatives got very angry at the Pagan groups who forced religion out of schools..And the Pagan groups got more angry because we still have Praying Presidents.. Tolerance is the key that many do not possess..And that goes for Bible Thumpers and the Pagans
And then you respond with this..
Posted by DoctorGonzo, 12/6/2007 11:44:03 AM
I support your right to believe as you believe. But as a Jew, I resent a belief system contrary to mine being force fed my children. This is not a Christian country, despite all your and the Religious Rights efforts to spin it so.
Support for one religion over another must never be the agenda of the State. That's a Dogma theocracy they have running rampant all over the Middle East.
Is that what you want for this country? To be a third rate backwards thinking country occupied by barbaric and oppressive leadership? Must I accept the love of Jesus in my heart or I will be flayed and slaughtered like a cow?
You'd enjoy that one, wouldn't you.
...Wake up Doc.. Now I say how can you call yourself intellectually elite if you can't comprehend what you read...I have said before in private school the Catholic Nuns beat the religion OUT of me..I was forcefully raised as a Catholic but I consider them heathens not christians.
If you can find a post where I proclaim I am a christian I will fly to Vegas and buy you a provider of your choice.. I have tolerance for all religions, atheists, or agnostics ..Religious people do not scare me and atheists do not scare me..Come on Doc wake up and quit making things up and its possible you could be respected.
... not in my lifetime anyway. Remember McCarthy, HUAC, ...
Political "discourse" has ALWAYS been sour and full of rancor. In the U.S., its been true for over 200 years, since the beginning.
But I also agree that the left was so opposed to Bork (and Regan) that they turned especially foul in the 80’s. I always felt that they somehow felt it was justified in the shadow of Nixon and Watergate. It actually became a pop culture term, to be “Borked”. They tried it again with Thomas but the right (and especially Thomas himself) fought back time.
Everyone would agree that the tone has become quite a bit worse. Even with Nixon, the attacks were on NIXON. They had little or nothing to say about Republicans in general.
For hating Reagan: Reagan's people did come in with-- a lot of arrogance; the Carter administration before it had been pretty bad.
They just thought he was stupid and a terribly weak President..
Before what time?
Where I was heading was the phenomena that people's reaction to events are often much more amplified to those things that they actually lived through. Taken to an extreme, some people (not you in particular) sort of have the feeling that history starts when they were born. Even with people that study history, that history which they personally experience sometimes stands out much more strongly.
If you think political discourse is vitriolic now-- you need to go back and look at the venom that was spewed at Lincoln at the time of the Civil War. Hell, the country went to war against itself-literally. Over 620,000 of our own killing each other.
Sweet then "Sour" political discourse has an illustrious history in America. It has always been and always will be. Kind of like the weather-some days the sun is shining, some days it rains. But there is always a rainbow just over the horizon.