"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[Red Baron Farms]

Nonsense. "It’s all in the racists mind" = "delusion" and that's not quite what "social construct" means, even when based on unsound principles.

You want to define "racist" in such a way that you can call affirmative action racism. No thanks, I'm not that morally confused. I prefer the conventional definition for a certain social malignancy: ethnic chauvinism and xenophobia. A racist is someone who assumes that he can judge a person by his ethnicity, and the "biological meaninglessness" of race is irrelevant to how that causes him to treat that person.

Not really ethnicity. A racist would lump a multitude of ethnicity together based on skin color in the assumption the skin color actually signifies something. It's complete nonsense.

An ethnic group, a people group, a people, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as common language, history, society, culture or nation.

Take China for example. While a racist would lump Chinese together as all part of the mongoloid race, it actually contains several ethnicities. Han, Zhuang, Hui, Manchu, Uyghur, Mongol, Miao, Yi, Tibetan and on and on and on.

The Racists categorization is meaningless, but the ethnic divisions do have some merit. It is useful in describing various language and cultural traditions etc...

And if one wanted to include genetic variation as well, race is useless, but instead more properly we use haplogroups and Haplotypes which are associated statistically.

There really is no purpose for race categorization other than discrimination. Some sort of mental gymnastics people play to justify their biases.

 

[Cabbage]

More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

Dueling polls! From your own link:

To be sure, not every poll shows the same thing. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll recently asked people if they believed climate change is “serious” and requires “immediate action.” Only around 15 percent of Republicans said yes compared with 71 percent of Democrats. It’s notable that the poll did not ask, as the Yale study did, for views on specific remedies — which is where the two parties seem to find more common ground.

It should also be noted that, even assuming the poll you posted is the more accurate, Republicans certainly have a knack for electing climate change deniers to congress (not to mention the presidency); regardless of percentage numbers, they are certainly the more vocal side of conservatism.

 

[Cabbage]

I like how you snuck that in there. For all the times I've heard this you would think that there was a mound of evidence Trump truly supported the Democrat agenda. I can't really seem to find anything about it, and I find this to be a red herring.

Even if he had been a democrat at some point, it hasn't been in the last decade considering his treatment of Obama. It's useless to bring up and I can't even think of a logical reason why it was, other than the obvious.

Evidently it's all part of RBF's attempts to spin the blame on Democrats. He's in denial regarding Republican culpability as far as I can tell.

 

[quadraginta]

Neoliberals in the real world are very similar to libertarians, with some important differences though.

its an hour lecture, skip to 33 minutes in if you want a good example of how it is effecting the climate debate and policy.

That should probably be "affecting" and not "effecting".

I don't see how someone else's opinions about "the climate debate and policy" has anything to do with your personal intent when using the term "neolib", and I'm not going to waste an hour or even a half hour of my time only to learn that it doesn't.

Why is it so difficult for you to simple write ... here on these pages ... just exactly what you personally mean when you use that term?

You use it quite a bit. Certainly you must have some relatively concise meaning which you intend.

Or perhaps you don't, and it is just a general purpose pejorative for you.

That would be okay, too. Just say so.

If you really want to use the wiki article you linked to then simply quote the specific part of it which describes the meaning you intend. There are several to choose from.

I am beginning to be puzzled by your apparent reluctance to simply say what you mean by a word which is such a common part of your vocabulary.

 

[Cabbage]

Racism is real, race isn't. d'oh

Social Constructs are, in fact, real. Your analysis is over simplistic BS.

 

[Trebuchet]

His self-identification is/was entirely based on the path most likely to lead to glory. When he identified as a Dem, it was meaningless. When he identifies as GOP, it's meaningless. Trump was and is a Trumpist. The belief system that is most similar is fascism.

Trump is not and has never been a sincere Democrat, Republican, Christian, or patriotic American. It's all about himself. His racism does seem genuine, however.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Evidently it's all part of RBF's attempts to spin the blame on Democrats. He's in denial regarding Republican culpability as far as I can tell.

not at all. I don't deny it at all. Makes me sick that the party I love was hijacked by these POS. But my fight is internal with them. And by the way, I am not just saying that. I do actually wage that battle. had a few minor scuffles today in fact. Believe it or not, I actually was told to "Go back where you came from" for posting that Reagan quote. In no way does it make me want to join the democrats side though. I would rather keep trying to take back my own party from those scum who hijacked it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That should probably be "affecting" and not "effecting".

I don't see how someone else's opinions about "the climate debate and policy" has anything to do with your personal intent when using the term "neolib", and I'm not going to waste an hour or even a half hour of my time only to learn that it doesn't.

Why is it so difficult for you to simple write ... here on these pages ... just exactly what you personally mean when you use that term?

You use it quite a bit. Certainly you must have some relatively concise meaning which you intend.

Or perhaps you don't, and it is just a general purpose pejorative for you.

That would be okay, too. Just say so.

If you really want to use the wiki article you linked to then simply quote the specific part of it which describes the meaning you intend. There are several to choose from.

I am beginning to be puzzled by your apparent reluctance to simply say what you mean by a word which is such a common part of your vocabulary.

The whole climate change denialist strategy and paid for Merchants of Doubt strategy was thought of, developed, and paid for by neoliberals.

Merchants of Doubt
In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

See that? "Free Market fundamentalism?" That's the neoliberal think tanks in action! Same jerks who hijacked the Republican party away from conservatives. Same elitists who recruited and then put Trump in the presidency even though he is clearly ill qualified and mentally unsuited for the job. And certainly lacks the character to even be considered for such a position. Yet there he is. The link I gave you for that hour lecture spells it out pretty clearly.

 

[Mycroft]

not at all. I don't deny it at all. Makes me sick that the party I love was hijacked by these POS. But my fight is internal with them. And by the way, I am not just saying that. I do actually wage that battle. had a few minor scuffles today in fact. Believe it or not, I actually was told to "Go back where you came from" for posting that Reagan quote. In no way does it make me want to join the democrats side though. I would rather keep trying to take back my own party from those scum who hijacked it.

If you still support them at the polls, then you're not really fighting them. They depend on your support while they scrounge the bottom of that basket of deplorables for new voters.

 

[Cabbage]

not at all. I don't deny it at all. Makes me sick that the party I love was hijacked by these POS. But my fight is internal with them. And by the way, I am not just saying that. I do actually wage that battle. had a few minor scuffles today in fact. Believe it or not, I actually was told to "Go back where you came from" for posting that Reagan quote. In no way does it make me want to join the democrats side though. I would rather keep trying to take back my own party from those scum who hijacked it.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about; you're doing it in the very post where you claim not to be doing it. Oh, it's not the Republicans fault; it's the fault of the neoliberals that hijacked the Republican Party.

And you do it your very next post, too!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If you still support them at the polls, then you're not really fighting them. They depend on your support while they scrounge the bottom of that basket of deplorables for new voters.

I did not vote for Trump, And in the primaries this time around I will be voting Bill Weld most certainly unless someone better comes along.

But I am pretty happy with Welds platform. He is libertarian rather than NeoLiberal. It's not nearly as bad. Not as good as a real conservative, but he is certainly better than Trump on the environment. The only social part of his platform I don't like is he is pro-choice, even to the degree of allowing late term abortions for any reason. I am pro-life (with the standard medical exceptions). I also agree 100% with his, "Government out of your pocketbook and your bedroom." policy.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about; you're doing it in the very post where you claim not to be doing it. Oh, it's not the Republicans fault; it's the fault of the neoliberals that hijacked the Republican Party.

And you do it your very next post, too!

If there is anyone in denial, it is you denying this very fact that the Republican party was hijacked in the first place. I am guessing your history is so weak that you forgot President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970 and it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. Yes that's the very same EPA Trump is bent on dismantling. Probably even so weak you forgot that the greatest environmentalist president of all time from any party was Teddy Roosevelt... a Republican!

 

[Foolmewunz]

There is just more lip service now. Look at how the Lib Dems signed off on the Go Home Vans and the Hostile Environment. And again, the USSR's multiculturalism did not stop it from coming apart at the seams. Brazil's and Venezuela's multiculturalism did not stop Bolsonaro and political collapse respectively.



And the alternate strategy of "FLOOD THE COUNTRY WITH IMMIGRANTS AND LET THE BIGOTS DROWN IN DEMOGRAPHIC DESTINY!" will work well.

Hilited: Works for me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The whole climate change denialist strategy and paid for Merchants of Doubt strategy was thought of, developed, and paid for by neoliberals.

What!

For a minute there I thought your desire to take the GOP back showed a glimmer of intelligence. And then you posted that steaming pile.

Bizarre.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What!

For a minute there I thought your desire to take the GOP back showed a glimmer of intelligence. And then you posted that steaming pile.

Bizarre.

Follow the money Ginger. Follow the money. And BTW I did actually back that with earlier references. So if you think the historians' conclusions are incorrect, then you are more than welcome to actually debate the damn issue with your own citations. However, unfounded personal attacks based on incredulity and ignorance are not acceptable skeptic positions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Follow the money Ginger. Follow the money. And BTW I did actually back that with earlier references. So if you think the historians' conclusions are incorrect, then you are more than welcome to actually debate the damn issue with your own citations. However, unfounded personal attacks based on incredulity and ignorance are not acceptable skeptic positions.

I don't care what you backed it with. I've read Merchants of Doubt and I was around when the paid-off tobacco scientists were fighting second-hand smoke regulations. I know about the aspirin manufacturers that killed hundreds of kids from Reye's syndrome because they fought to delay simple warning labels. Exxon spent millions promoting global warming science doubt.

There's absolutely nothing "liberal" neo or otherwise involved with corporate greed killing people for a buck. Follow the money, yeah, straight to the GOP.

If you are projecting that on to liberals, what is wrong with you?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I don't care what you backed it with. I've read Merchants of Doubt and I was around when the paid-off tobacco scientists were fighting second-hand smoke regulations. I know about the aspirin manufacturers that killed hundreds of kids from Reye's syndrome because they fought to delay simple warning labels. Exxon spent millions promoting global warming science doubt.

There's absolutely nothing "liberal" neo or otherwise involved with corporate greed killing people for a buck. Follow the money, yeah, straight to the GOP.

If you are projecting that on to liberals, what is wrong with you?

Apparently the part you missed is the fact that Neoliberals are not liberals or even leftists? They sit squarely in the center of Wall Street and know no other ideology other than using the power of their money to increase their power and money. Their primary strategy is obfuscate deny confuse and mislead publicly while privately making backroom deals to insert the right people for regulatory capture, thus protecting their ill gotten gains with the full weight and measure of the US government and military.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Apparently the part you missed is the fact that Neoliberals are not liberals or even leftists? They sit squarely in the center of Wall Street and know no other ideology other than using the power of their money to increase their power and money. Their primary strategy is obfuscate deny confuse and mislead publicly while privately making backroom deals to insert the right people for regulatory capture, thus protecting their ill gotten gains with the full weight and measure of the US government and military.

So do you support Democrats' efforts to shore up consumer protection, something that Republicans consistently defund, undermine or abolish?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So do you support Democrats' efforts to shore up consumer protection, something that Republicans consistently defund, undermine or abolish?

Most of the consumer protections the Democrats propose are indeed sneaky attempts by industry to use regulatory capture. There are easily as many Neoliberal back room deals going on in Democrat halls as the Republican side.

These guys are pure plutocrats, they donate to both parties, they have no allegiance to either liberal or conservative ideology. They are willing to use both to suit their purposes and actually prefer to be on both sides of any deal made so as to be capable of rigging the system so they can't lose no matter which side wins.

I gave a perfect example of that very thing on the rural thread a few days back

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Most of the consumer protections the Democrats propose are indeed sneaky attempts by industry to use regulatory capture. There are easily as many Neoliberal back room deals going on as the Republican side.

and yet only one side wants to limit that

These guys are pure plutocrats, they donate to both parties, they have no allegiance to either liberal or conservative ideology. They are willing to use both to suit their purposes and actually prefer to be on both sides of any deal made so as to be capable of rigging the system so they can't lose no matter which side wins.

all the more reason to support efforts to limit the damage they can cause, even if it's not as much or as far reaching as we want to.

My point is: your policies are supported by Democrats, not Republicans.
So why not support them?
At least until the GOP rediscovers its original values?