Implications of Republican sweep, part II

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Another prediction: Look for the Jones Act to be eliminated. This action would have a huge impact on rail operations, as it would allow foreign flagged ships to sail between U.S. ports. It might make Alaskan coals price competitive with PRB coals in coastal coal consumer markets. Also could take some north-south trade away from the railroads on the East Coast.

What a bunch of BUNK. The usual FM drivel. FM, get with the program. The Congressional support for a repeal of the Jones Act doesn't exist, even with a Republican majority in both Houses and a Republican President...

What is your source of information for this unfettered speculation???

LC

[Anonymous]

It is so unfortunate that pure scientific method has been bastardized by global warming types. To sum up the methods and conclusions of Gary's links, "A (increased CO2 measurements) is occuring along with B (average global tempuratures), therefore there is a causal relation between A and B, and we believe that A is in fact causing B." This type of simplistic corelational thought is what undermines true scientific analysis.

Did it occur to anyone that using this approach we could also say that B (global rising tempuratures) are conversely causing A (increased CO2 levels)? Believe it or not, there are now a number of scientists who are saying just that, since the basic laws of physics would suggest increasing CO2 in concurrance along with increasing temperatures. As temperatures rise, plant growth increases, which also increases the amount of biomass exposed to oxidation. It takes a while before plant growth can catch up to the temperature rise and begin to sequester CO2 in greater quantities.

Rather than get into a fight over who can provide the most links to prove their side, I will ask anyone to disprove the ones we've already provided. The links to sites which completely disprove the man-caused global warming theories are irrefutable, while the links provided by Andrew and Gary all have major omissions of the salient variables regarding greenhouse gas elements and these itemized gases' contributions to the greenhouse effect. All the models which support man-caused global warming leave out water vapor in their analysis, which is such absolutely absurd if one wants a true global climate impact model. All those models also make assumptions regarding man's contribution to current CO2 levels, assuming most if not all of the difference in pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels from current CO2 levels is due soley to man's burning of fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that it is more likely that CO2 levels will naturally rise in correspondence to rising tempurature. Lastly, they also completely ignore the one for one relationship between solar activity and global climate changes.

Gary and Andrew, I challenge you to go back through the links you've provided, and see if the models used to "prove" man is causing global warming have the omissions I have just mentioned, e.g. no accounting of atmospheric water vapor, no acknowledgement of the probable positive relationship between rising tempuratures and a corresponding rise in CO2 levels (or "B" causing "A" rather than "A" causing "B"), or even the lack of relationship between man-caused CO2 emissions and the MIddle Ages warming period (in which plant growth data show that temperatures then were much warmer than today, and as far as we know no rise in sea levels or massive species extinction were measurably noticed in the historical record of the time).

If you can't, then case closed!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: For so far I have not heard the flip side reason why the greenhouse gases are increasing. I have a pretty good idea what is causing them to increase but do they say this or something else?

radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994  [Battle] [C.Keeling]
[Schimel 94, p 43-44].   All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:

*  Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
   1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
   290 ppmv.  The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
   observed over the past 220,000 years.  In the Vostok and Byrd ice
   cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv.  A more detailed record from
   peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
   but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
   p 44-45] [White]

*  The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
   from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].

*  The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
   Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
   must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
   p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].

[Junctionfan]

For so far I have not heard the flip side reason why the greenhouse gases are increasing. I have a pretty good idea what is causing them to increase but do they say this or something else?

[Anonymous]

The Bush administration hasn’t yet killed or corrupted climate research in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

They have a concise website on global warming with clear graphs and summaries on the relation of CO2 to world temperature, melting of polar ice, strength of hurricanes, drying out of soil, and rising sea level.

gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/OnePagers/OnePageA03degF.pdf Patterns of Global Warming
gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/OnePagers/OnePageA02.pdf Global Warming & River Flows
gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/OnePagers/OnePageF01.pdf Global Warming and Hurricanes
gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/OnePagers/OnePageC01.pdf Sea Level Change Projections
gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/OnePagers/OnePageB01.pdf Greenhouse Warming Commitment
gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/OnePagers/OnePageA01.pdf Ocean Warming & Greenhouse Gases
gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/KDwebpages/discover.html Temperature & Precipitation Projections

gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html Global Warming and Hurricanes

gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/KDwebpages/NHice.html Projected Arctic Sea Ice Changes

gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/early_20th_cent_warming.html Early 20th Century Global Warming

A quicktime movie of a “supertyphoon in a high co2 climate” that dwarfs Taiwan.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/products/vis/images/gallery/hiCO2_anim_E.mov

gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html Climate model of 4x increase in CO2

In a nutshell CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases produce a greenhouse effect which is rising temperature. Their model shows global temperature tracks CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

[Junctionfan]

I have never heard of water vapour putting holes in the ozone nor have I heard of people dying from lung cancer from water vapours. Something isn't right.........I know..

Does it say anything about contaminated water vapour? Water vapour molecules that have been contaminated with the chemicals that are released into the air by us humans?

Consider the amount of chemicals we have been using since the 60s and tell me what do you think is happening? How do you think acid rain is formed? Using the same principal, we are negatively altering the natural water vapour to produce the wrong results.

Neither of your links takes into consideration of the ozone layer which is our buffer from direct sun rays. The fact that we are experiencing climate change stems from the continuing gaping wholes in the ozone layer over both the arctic and the antarctic which has suffered direct sun radiation and is now melting the ice caps.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Kyoto/

Read through this. It explains how Canada is already implementing Kyoto Protocol and is saving companies quite a bit of money in the process. It even includes how the U.S can implement it without "ruining the economy" as you have been lead to believe by politicians clearly led by the nose by the fossil fuel interest groups and corporations.

Sorry, but I did read through it, and predictably David Suzuki's climate models omit water vapor from the list of greenhouse gases. Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases, and 99% of the greenhouse effect. Why would any "scientist" trying to convince people to his argument leave out the most significant variable from his climate model? Apparently, Mr. Suzuki's grantlust supercedes proper scientific protocol.

The other glaring problem is his economic "benefit" analysis of implementing Kyoto. He offers no quantifiable proof of any economic gain from Kyoto, only assumed variables based mostly on sophistry. In other words, he assumes gain from the avoidance of the bad things that will ostensibly occur without Kyoto's implementation. Of course, if indeed man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is factually less than 0.17% as has been established, then of course Kyoto's implementation will do nothing to change climate trends for the better.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Kyoto will do nothing for the betterment of man, any more than burning witches or throwing salt over your shoulder.

[Junctionfan]

Too add to this, it seems to be that it's all on rationing out where the emission cuts should go. Just because say 40% national emissions have to be cut, doesn't mean that all of it has to be dumped on the fossil fuel or other industrial businesses too.

I have heard of great things coming out of "Clean Coal Technology" where it reduces emissions as much as 50%-that's a good start. What about us? Can we turn of lights when we leave a room or use more lightbulbs that require less wattage?-Yes. Can we use insulation on our homes and businesses to make them heating efficient?-Yes and it will save us money on the heating bills. Can we use mass transit more instead of our cars to get to work?-some of us yes. Can we walk to the store instead of using the car?-some of us yes (depends on what you are getting and how much of it).

There is alot of things we can do to save on consuming of power and energy which will reduce the emissions of the power plants. And reduce the emissions from cars. If people car-pooled more, they would be so bad either.

The auto sector is responding by making more fuel efficient cars and other vehicles even locomotives (EMD, GE) so they are adapting. Office buildings are adapting by using different lighting and isulations as well as turning off some of the lights at night and saving themselves lots of money. Steel industry is adapting by heading towards electric furnaces instead of the blast furnaces. The trucking industry is adapting slightly by trying to get their loads onto trains if they can. Some railroads like CP, are increasing their capacity to run more trains (they are helping out).

The only people who are not adapting would seem to be the greedy oil giants and the shareholders of the company that want nothing more than money and to hell with the health of people around.

With a little financial help from the government, there is no reason why the Kyoto Protocol could not be done. I have yet to see concrete proof from the nay sayers that this is not possible without cutting 5 millions jobs. I am curious to see how that is to happen.

[Anonymous]

See as how this thread is going, I'll just stand asside

[Junctionfan]

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Kyoto/

Read through this. It explains how Canada is already implementing Kyoto Protocol and is saving companies quite a bit of money in the process. It even includes how the U.S can implement it without "ruining the economy" as you have been lead to believe by politicians clearly led by the nose by the fossil fuel interest groups and corporations.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

How would John Locke look at this discussion?

First of all, John Locke was a philosopher, not really an economist. He is the godfather of the sect known as the "zero sum gain" crowd. He coined the term "dismal science" to describe economics. Needless to say, he would probably side with the global warming fanatics, since they wholly engender his grim view of the future.

[espeefoamer]

I would like to send these "scientists"and other environmentalists to the end of the last ice age.It would be fun watching thier predictions." Oh No. All the ice is melting.If this isn't stopped, Los Angeles will be hot and dry. We're all doomed!"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

The Weath of Nations still seems to be a good place to get a good handle on the way the world actually works in an economic way. Enlightened Self Interest also seems to be a very powerfull motivator.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is a masterpiece. Crony capitalists claim him as their patron saint and have misled many into believing free markets solve all problems. Smith knew better...
adamsmith.org/smith/modest-man.htm


Many men cried, as many still do, that Adam Smith offers an apologia for unconscionable aggrandizement by the heartless rich at the expense of the helpless poor. But only those who have not read him can think him inhumane, or cynical, or an apologist for a dog-eat-dog order. It was Adam Smith, not Karl Marx, who warned: "No society can flourish [where] the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable;" or castigated a social order in which "a mother who has borne twenty children" sees only two survive; or said that mass production would brutalize men's minds unless the government prevented it through energetic public education; or showed how road tolls help the rich "at the expense of the poor."

Smith knew perfectly well that businessmen are prone to possess "a mean rapacity [and] monopolozing spirit." "People of the same trade seldom meet together," he wrote, without concocting "a conspiracy against the public." In a typically dry, wry, memorable passage, he observed:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." ...

"pure and rational religion, free from every mixture of absurdity, imposture, or fanaticism, such as wise men in all ages have wished to see established. The...zeal of religious leaders can be dangerous only where there is...but one sect [or two or three] tolerated in the society. That zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into two or three hundred sects, of which no one would be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity."

[Modelcar]

....All these problems need to be met with reason and not extremes....from both sides.
As divided as we are now in this country, I wonder if there is any chance of that happening....regarding what adminstration is in power. No matter how red much of the country is and how blue the coasts and the upper mid west is....We're cut pretty close down the middle and if one side tries to ramrod any extreme through it's not going to work and any problem we have will remain.

[DSchmitt]

There are "scientists" who have make their living by crying doom so that they can get grants to study the problem and propose solutions. Usually their solutions are worse than the problem.

It is very easy to pass laws and regulations that can not or should not be obeyed. Remember:
"When two trains arrive at a crossing at the same time, each must stop and neither may proceed until the other has gone".[?][?] Another one: pi=3.00 so that calculations involving circles would be easier.[:o)]

In California MTBE was put into the gasolene to reduce air pollution. Yes, it was proposed by an "evil"[}:)] oil company, but the reguators[:o)] ordered it without testing and investigation into the consequences. The leaking fuel tank monitoring and clean-ups has been a real boon to the "environmental industry"[:0]. They still haven't found an economical way to get it out of the water[:(]

In addition, despite glowing press releases, the increase in fuel use, due to higher fuel consumption, negates much of the benefit of burning "cleaner".[V]

[Anonymous]

The Weath of Nations still seems to be a good place to get a good handle on the way the world actually works in an economic way. Enlightened Self Interest also seems to be a very powerfull motivator. How would John Locke look at this discussion? I have yet to see a better model, unless Shumpeter is brought in for consideration.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Have you actually read the treaty?

Me personally, I believe that our governments should invest 50% into the industries to reduce the emissions. Thankfully alot of industries are starting to do this already including the coal fired plants. I don't believe that as soon as the Kyoto Protocol was to be implemented, everything had to be done all at once.

Consider how much money governments would spend on healthcare not to mention the people who don't have their healthcare paid for by the government. Kyoto like tendencies can be very profitable if you know what you want to save on. Sometimes monetary profit is not as important as maintaining a healthy environment.

Despite some peoples arguements that the world will not end. They are true. The world will survive, its just our species will cease to exist. I would say in a hundred years from now, we will see some evidence of things to come. The polar ice caps are melting and our storms our getting more intense and frequent. Tell me when anybody has heard of middle eastern countries getting snow? When was the last time people has heard of Europe suffering a heat wave that killed many people? Has the U.S ever declared smog advisories and if so, how many? Are they growing?

I think people better wake up and realize what is going on here. What do you think will happen when the ozone layer is gone? Think of a marshmallow and a fireplace. Direct UV rays are deadly and will burn us as if we stumbled into a giant microwave. I don't understand how people can be so naiive and not think about thease things in a logical manner.

Andrew,

Have YOU actually read the treaty? It requires committed (e.g. duped) countries to reduce CO2 emissions back to pre-1990 levels, roughly a 7% reduction. Since viable CO2 sequestration technologies are still years away, how are nations supposed to meet these requirements without a de facto shut down of 7% of CO2 emitting industries?

What it means for Canada is that future energy needs will have to be met by more expensive options such as natural gas power plants instead of coal fired power plants, and you'll end up wasting tons of cash on solar and wind projects which simply cannot meat legitimate energy needs. Your aluminum plants will have to come up with some way to reduce emissions, and the cost of doing this will make the end product more expensive compared to aluminum produced in non-Kyoto countries and Kyoto exempted countries. More than likely Canada will lose a handfull of aluminum production facilities, meaning those workers will be laid off. Your nation will be restricted from future timber cutting. And of course, with a reduction in coal mining, timber output, and metal production, the railroads will have less to carry, so more layoffs in that sector.

You also know that climate fluctuations are part of a natural cycle that has been going on for eons. The current climate fluctuations are exactly coorelated to fluctuations in solar activity. Furthermore, mankind's actual contribution to the greenhouse effect is whopping 0.17%, so a 7% reduction in CO2 from man-made sources amounts to an astounding 0.0119%! Yeah, that's really going to make a difference in the greenhouse effect! Man could double his CO2 output and still not make a dent in the total greenhouse gas accumulations, so why should we emasculate our economies for the sake of the cult of idiocy?

The problem with these junk scientists is that they know they will not be around in a hundred years to be held accountable when their dire predictions are proved false. Typical Keynesian lack of responsibility: "Who cares about impacts of econimic policy in the long run? In the long run we'll all be dead!"

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion


LBJ would have loved to think that he predicted the south would be Republican, but it was not he but Sen. Richard B. Russell, Jr. (D) of Gerogia that told LBJ that if the voting rights act of 1964 passed that "Mr. President if this passes you will lose the South for the Democratic party forever." That is vintage Russell not LBJ. If you want to learn more about this strange relationship it can be found in the Bio on LBJ "Master of the Senate" where the author writes that Russell was as close to a mentor as LBJ ever got. By the way in an asside, Senator Russell was partial to the Southern Cresent Limited going North and The Southerner returning South.

"Master of the Senate" is the kind of book I'd like to read but know I'll never get around to. LBJ was never known for original thinking but was too good at making the most of other peoples ideas.

I clicked on the 1860 results in the link I posted above and there is practicaly a match between states that voted for Kerry in 2004 and states that voted for Lincoln in 1860.

It is interesting how the states party alignment has shifted, but if you consider the issues, they are much different issues today than during the civil war. I really don't think Kerry has all that much in common with Lincoln anyway. Kerry is more like Gen. George B. McClelland (Lincoln's challenger in 1864) who wanted to negotiate a settlement with the South to end the war rather than press on to victory.

[Junctionfan]

Have you actually read the treaty?

Me personally, I believe that our governments should invest 50% into the industries to reduce the emissions. Thankfully alot of industries are starting to do this already including the coal fired plants. I don't believe that as soon as the Kyoto Protocol was to be implemented, everything had to be done all at once.

Consider how much money governments would spend on healthcare not to mention the people who don't have their healthcare paid for by the government. Kyoto like tendencies can be very profitable if you know what you want to save on. Sometimes monetary profit is not as important as maintaining a healthy environment.

Despite some peoples arguements that the world will not end. They are true. The world will survive, its just our species will cease to exist. I would say in a hundred years from now, we will see some evidence of things to come. The polar ice caps are melting and our storms our getting more intense and frequent. Tell me when anybody has heard of middle eastern countries getting snow? When was the last time people has heard of Europe suffering a heat wave that killed many people? Has the U.S ever declared smog advisories and if so, how many? Are they growing?

I think people better wake up and realize what is going on here. What do you think will happen when the ozone layer is gone? Think of a marshmallow and a fireplace. Direct UV rays are deadly and will burn us as if we stumbled into a giant microwave. I don't understand how people can be so naiive and not think about thease things in a logical manner.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What is Bush's reason for not wanting to sign the Kyoto Protocol?

That's obvious. Kyoto is a bad treaty based on very bad science. The real question is, Why were the Canadians dumb enough to sign on to Kyoto? Unlike Russia, China, or India (who are either exempted from the constraints of the treaty, or have already lost so much industrial capacity that they are already in compliance), Canada is in the same boat as the U.S. and Australia, in that any real compliance with the treaty's caveats would trigger a severe economic downslide. The U.S. and the Aussies were smart enough not to sign it, so why did Canada bow to the will of the EU?

If Canada doesn't find a way real soon to get out of the treaty, your unemployment rate is going to rise into double digits within the next few years.

[DSchmitt]

The Earth has enjoyed a period of minor climate flucations for at least 100,000 years. The global warming scare mongers predict that mans activities will thow the Earth out of this "mild" cycle due to excess green house gases.

During this "mild" cycle the Earth has had both warmer and colder periods than today. There have been periods of more rapid temperature change (both up and down) too. The warmer periods have been times of abundance, increases in popuation and the flowering of civilizations.

There is no proof that the they are correct. They make dire predictions based on computer simulations that have been shown to be too crude to prove anything. They manipulate them to get the results they want . Garbage In, Garbage out.

In some ways we were better off when we knew less and didn't have a bunch of people claiming think we were "all powerful" on Earth.

We must protect the environment for the good of ourselves and othe living things on Earth. This does not mean no change or rolling back the clock is desirable.

Environmentalism is supposed to be about making informed decisions, not stoping progress. Too many decisions are made according to what "sounds right" with no legitimate study to determine what is right.

[Anonymous]

I do like healthy discussion and I know of no better place than here.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What is Bush's reason for not wanting to sign the Kyoto Protocol?

[:D]

President Bush understands that most of the pollution on earth is created by nations producing products for consuption in America or Americans using hydrocarbons to fuel products manufactured overseas. If we stop buying products made abroad or stop using their products, pollution would dramatically decrease. Most of the worlds pollution comes from Japan, Germany, China, Korea, Thailand, Canada etc manufacturing cars,electrronics, computers, clothing, and everything inside Wally World. And then we consume petroleum to power the Hondas, Toyotas, BMWs Mercedes, and Canadian produced vehicles. Don't forget the coal fired power plants belching sulfur to run all of the foriegn made electronics!.
Now lets say W proclaims Kyoto a good thing. And every American must give up one foreign car and a a half dozen Sony Tvs , home computers, and a couple of dozen other non energy star rated appliances to reach our goal. Just who is going to be out of work? [B)] When America is in recession, the world is in depression.
Be careful what you wish for. [8]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What is Bush's reason for not wanting to sign the Kyoto Protocol?

The same as Bill Clinton's. They are bad for America, and they are not really designed to "save" the world. They are designed to hurt the economy of the United States and allow other nations with less efficient economys to compete. Also the US Constitution requires Senate ratification, and they wisely will not do it. The majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate agree on this.

Under the Protocals "developing nations" are allowed to increase their pollution output (while increases would happen with growth anyway, they would building industries with minimal pollution control exasperating the "greenhous gas problem" even more) while the US must cut back. This means the US must install expensive retrofits, build new factories with pollution controls beyond what is required elswhere, and/or shutdown.

Production is already leaving the US because of our generally higher pollution and safety requirements and lower wages overseas. The US worker is among the most productive in the world, which helps keep many jobs here, since the lower wages overseas often do not offset the costs of lower efficency and transportation to market.

When new factories are built anywhere in the world they should be as "clean" as reasonably possible. The nations and companies building "dirty" facilities are harming the people who work in them and/or live near them and the Earth.

Despite the all the press coverage, and web sites promoting the theory of global warming as fact, it is far from proven. There is a very strong correlation between the suns activity and the temperature of the Earth. Some scicentist argue that the supposed correlation between the Earths temperature and man's activities is based on faulty observations and erroneous interpetation of data.

This is one site few sites that gives a more balanced picture than most sites on either side of the issue:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

I recently read a newsparper article in which it was reported that some respected scientist "tested" the global warming theory by comparing several of its predictions (chosen because they must be true if the theory is correct and could be compared to available data ) with the real world. The predictions were entirely wrong, therefore the theory is fundamentally flawed. This does not necesairly mean global warming caused by man is not happening (although that is highly likely), but is a clear indication thet we don't understand it. The article is probably on the internet, but I haven't found it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion


LBJ would have loved to think that he predicted the south would be Republican, but it was not he but Sen. Richard B. Russell, Jr. (D) of Gerogia that told LBJ that if the voting rights act of 1964 passed that "Mr. President if this passes you will lose the South for the Democratic party forever." That is vintage Russell not LBJ. If you want to learn more about this strange relationship it can be found in the Bio on LBJ "Master of the Senate" where the author writes that Russell was as close to a mentor as LBJ ever got. By the way in an asside, Senator Russell was partial to the Southern Cresent Limited going North and The Southerner returning South.

"Master of the Senate" is the kind of book I'd like to read but know I'll never get around to. LBJ was never known for original thinking but was too good at making the most of other peoples ideas.

I clicked on the 1860 results in the link I posted above and there is practicaly a match between states that voted for Kerry in 2004 and states that voted for Lincoln in 1860.

Is this a great country or what, I don't care what the media does to say were divided and hatefull, We are still Americans and have gotten far enough along to have a disagreement but keep on keeping on. No other country in the world can do it this way and that does make us different .

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion


LBJ would have loved to think that he predicted the south would be Republican, but it was not he but Sen. Richard B. Russell, Jr. (D) of Gerogia that told LBJ that if the voting rights act of 1964 passed that "Mr. President if this passes you will lose the South for the Democratic party forever." That is vintage Russell not LBJ. If you want to learn more about this strange relationship it can be found in the Bio on LBJ "Master of the Senate" where the author writes that Russell was as close to a mentor as LBJ ever got. By the way in an asside, Senator Russell was partial to the Southern Cresent Limited going North and The Southerner returning South.

"Master of the Senate" is the kind of book I'd like to read but know I'll never get around to. LBJ was never known for original thinking but was too good at making the most of other peoples ideas.

I clicked on the 1860 results in the link I posted above and there is practicaly a match between states that voted for Kerry in 2004 and states that voted for Lincoln in 1860.

[Junctionfan]

What is Bush's reason for not wanting to sign the Kyoto Protocol?

[Anonymous]

LBJ would have loved to think that he predicted the south would be Republican, but it was not he but Sen. Richard B. Russell, Jr. (D) of Gerogia that told LBJ that if the voting rights act of 1964 passed that "Mr. President if this passes you will lose the South for the Democratic party forever." That is vintage Russell not LBJ. If you want to learn more about this strange relationship it can be found in the Bio on LBJ "Master of the Senate" where the author writes that Russell was as close to a mentor as LBJ ever got. By the way in an asside, Senator Russell was partial to the Southern Cresent Limited going North and The Southerner returning South.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Actually, if you read your history, you will find that family farmers were all consistent Democrat voters since the founding of the Republican party in the 1850's, all the way through the reign of FDR, right up to the boondoggle of the Carter Administration.

Cotton plantations aren't family farms. Family farms were (past tense) homesteads typically in the plain states (Nebraska, Kansas, Dakota's). Railroads recruited families from Europe to populate the land grants railroads were given by the government.

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/
Here's a map for you showing Presidential elections by state back to 1860. Democrats seldom won outside the south until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act giving the south to Republicans, just as Johnson predicted.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller
Judging by the rest of the country, it seems that the Democrats have largely traded in farmers for big city liberals.

Family farmers have loyaly voted Republican for as long as there has been a Republican party and their reward has been to lose their farms to agri-business.

Actually, if you read your history, you will find that family farmers were all consistent Democrat voters since the founding of the Republican party in the 1850's, all the way through the reign of FDR, right up to the boondoggle of the Carter Administration. When Carter started inhibiting U.S. ag exports as tools for "punishing" other nations, that was when farmers started losing market share and a subsequent loss of family farms to bankruptcy, and that was when family farmers switched almost en masse to voting Republican. So basically farmers have only been voting Republican for the last 25 years. It may be a reluctant relationship, based more on the fact that the Democrats have totally abandoned small businesses (including farmers), than any deep appreciation for Republican ideals.

If you live in the Corn Belt, you'll vote Republican.
If you line in the Porn Belt, you'll vote Democrat.