Posted on 07/12/2006 4:11:44 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Oh, sure. As a kid we went to races at "The Brickyard" in Milwaukee, WI.
I was a teen when my folks were socked with 18-20% interest rates on their mortgage, waiting in line for gasoline, all that Carter-Era Crisis stuff...which didn't even have the added bonus of Global Warming Doom and Gloom tacked on, LOL!
Let's see...it's 29 years later and we're still guzzling oil. I'm not worried about it. Yesterday on a local radio talk show there was an Ex-Carter Cabinet Energy Guy on as a guest and all he could suggest on energy savings and saving the planet was for people to switch to CP lightbulbs and to replace their windows. Duh. Anyone (like me) that watches their household "bottom line" has already done that.
Actually, no. The majority of Christians never believed in a pre-tribulation rapture, nor, indeed do the majority of Christians today.
The 'pre-tribulation rapture' is an error of Scriptural interpretation which first arose among some small protestant sects in the 19th century. No Christian before that believed it, and no Orthodox, Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, or Calvinist (whether Presbyterian or Congregationalist) Christian who actually believes the teachings of his or her confession believes it today.
Go back and read the passage in which St. Paul describes the believers who are alive meeting the Lord in the air. It is plainly a description of an event coincident with the general resurrection, and thus after all of this world's history, including whatever horrors actualize St. John's prophecies in his Apocalypse. I would go so far as to suggest the 'pre-tribulation rapture' is a heresy promulgated by the Evil One to lead the faithful astray: those who hold it will reason 'we haven't been raptured, so this can't be the Anti-Christ,' and will be easy prey.
If his movie is anything like his book, Mind Out of Balance; making the Country watch it will put Sominex out of business.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
"People get scared when they hear the word Apocalypse, but here I mean it in the good sense: a Revealing. An Apocalypse is supposed to reveal good news to good people. (And if it also happens to reveal bad news to bad people, so be it. Just don't be bad.)"
There will be sacrifices to deal with global warming...
Let's start by sacrificing journalist professors (emeritus professors have priority), then continue on with academia, MSM, liberal politicians and Hollywood.
I'm certain this start with reduce the amount of "hot air" causing global warming
"I'd suggest we start by making Al Gore's slide-show movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," required viewing in every high school in the country."
"Look into my eyes! You're getting warmer, kiddies. Warmer, warmer...."
I think we all need to give the President of Western Washington University an earful. If I had a kid going to school there, I'd get a Ward Churchill ball rolling on this jerk.
The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science, says Professor Bob Cook, from the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia.
Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.
Not quite. It's "You will make sacrifices...". Beautiful People are exempt.
I'm taking a class now where the prof. is giving extra credit for seeing "Inconvenient Truth".
If I do it I'll have to go while I'm severely inebriated.
You're right of course and we know who also made this statement, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
No wonder your head hurts ;-)
The headline does not say the same thing as the Perfesser. He does NOT say "Christians CAUSE indescribable tortures and agony" though he probably believes it.
Protectionism would be a tool used by some one who hates America since it lowers our standard of living and makes life more expensive to Americans especially lower income Americans.
And just why are their "lower income Americans" pray tell?
Perhaps you have read Econoists Pat Choates or perhaps Dr. Ravi Batra's book The Myth of Free Trade: The Pooring of America., here are some relevant quotes:
"Unlike most of its trading partners, real wages in the United States have been tumbling since 1973, the first year of the country's switch to laissez-faire." (pg 126-127)- "Before 1973, the US economy was more or less closed and self-reliant, so that efficiency gains in industry generated only a modest price fall, and real earnings soared for all Americans." (pg. 66-67) -
- "Moreover, it turns out that 1973 was the first year in its entire history when the United States became an open economy with free trade." (pg. 39) -
- "Throughout its history, at least until 1970, America was practically a closed economy." (pg. 37)
One of our President's also had a dynamic theory as to that...and the interconnections:
President William McKinley (1896-1901) stated at the time of his political tenure:
"[They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man."[It is said] that protection is immoral.... Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, `Buy where you can buy the cheapest'.... Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim:
`Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."
It sounds like you keep offering only shallow Tom Friedman-ite notions of economics...without knowing any history or actual economics. Here also is a broad dissertation of actual history as reprinted in Wikipedia:
National economic policyAccording to historian Michael Lind
"Many things that educated people in the English-speaking world think that they know about economic history are, in fact, false. It is not true that there was a golden age of free trade ended by America's adoption of the much-reviled Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930; a tariff which is unfairly blamed for the rise of fascism and the second world war-phenomena which originated, respectively, in the cultural trauma of the first world war and the geopolitical ambitions of Germany, Japan and Italy, rather than the depression. The school of thought in economic policy with the greatest global influence between the 1800s and the mid-20th century was not the laissez-faire "English School" of Adam Smith and David Ricardo but the rival school of economic nationalism, which is more accurately labelled as "strategic economics" because its prescriptions have been followed successfully by empires, trading blocs and city-states as well as nation states.Hence, in view of these facts, it would appear that rather than hating America, it is the nationalists who love it...and the free trade apostles who hate it and its people.In the US in the 1790s, the brilliant first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, laid out a programme for the industrialisation of the country by means of infant-industry protection and other policies. Hamilton's programme was developed in the next generation by Henry Clay, under the name of "the American System," and implemented under Clay's disciple and admirer Abraham Lincoln and his successors during the period between the 1860s and the 1940s, when the US became the planet's leading manufacturing economy behind a high wall of tariffs.
The lessons of the "American school" of "national economy," transmitted to Germany by Friedrich List, formed the basis of state-sponsored industrialisation in Wilhelmine Germany. Moreover, during a visit to Germany in the 1870s, Toshimichi Okubo, one of the leaders of the Meiji Restoration, became acquainted with the Hamilton-List tradition. Returning to Japan, Okubo founded the ministry of home affairs, which promoted Japanese industry, and in 1874 issued an equivalent of Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufactures, in the form of his influential Proposal for Industrial Promotion.
By the early 20th century, then, the US, Germany and Japan had successfully used strategic economics to catch up with Britain and (in the case of the first two nations) to surpass it. Even Britain's dominions of Australia and Canada, emulating American and German practice rather than British theory, insisted on the right to use tariffs to keep out goods from Britain and establish their own industrial base. Not that Britain had any right to complain. From the Tudors until the early 19th century, Britain used various protectionist devices to promote its own industries. The 18th-century prime minister Robert Walpole, remembered chiefly today as a corrupt politician pilloried by Alexander Pope, turns out, according to Chang, to have been an industrial-policy mastermind who inspired Alexander Hamilton.
Only when Britain's industrial supremacy was secure did the British begin to promote free trade, in the hope of wiping out competitive industries in the US, continental Europe and elsewhere. Following the Napoleonic wars, which stimulated the growth of American manufacturing by suspending transatlantic trade, Lord Henry Brougham in 1816 told parliament: "It is well worthwhile to incur a loss upon the first exportation, in order by the glut, to stifle in the cradle, those rising manufactures, in the US, which the war had forced into existence, contrary to the natural course of things." The "natural course of things," according to British politicians and British theorists of free trade, required the US to supply Britain with agricultural goods and raw materials and to import, rather than make, all of its machinery and manufactured goods.
John Adams wrote in 1819: "I am old enough to remember the war of 1745, and its end; the war of 1755, and its close; the war of 1775, and its termination; the war of 1812, and its pacification...The British manufacturers, immediately after the peace, disgorged upon us all their stores of merchandise and manufactures, not only without profit, but at certain loss for a time, with the express purpose of annihilating all our manufacturers, and ruining all our manufactories." In India and Ireland, the British imperial authorities actually outlawed the native textile industries. Like Britain, the US protected and subsidised its industries while it was a developing country, switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out by the second world war and the US enjoyed a virtual monopoly in many manufacturing sectors.
The revival of Europe and Japan by the 1970s eliminated these monopoly profits, and the support for free trade of industrial-state voters in the American midwest and northeast declined. Today, support for free-trade globalism in the US comes chiefly from the commodity-exporting south and west and from US multinationals which have moved their factories to low-wage countries like Mexico and China. Like 19th-century Britain, 21st-century America tells countries that are trying to catch up: do what we say, not what we did."
My post #36 might be of use for you.
Excellent!
In 5th or 6th grade I had to watch "the last passenger pigeon", don't remember any of it except it was very sad and it was Nixon's fault (or something like that).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.