Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 3:37:30 GMT
About Global Warming. Let's all agree that global warming is real and that human beings are a major cause of it (whether or not we all actually agree is immaterial to my opinion on the matter.) I am always surprised that everyone doesn't understand that we're never coming back from this. Human beings, as a group, are not willing or able to do what would need to be done to actually reverse any deleterious effects they're causing. Not in the worldwide or personal sense. You can keep separating your garbage and picketing for the Paris Accord and buying zero-emissions vehicles, and none of that is going to make the least bit of difference. Every human being individually and as a group would have to do everything that decreases our footprint from this moment until forever, and no matter how much you think you personally do and encourage others to do, what we're all doing amounts to zilch. We're still buying electronics and driving and procreating and consuming, consuming, consuming, and since we're not really willing to stop doing all of that (and since human beings can't stop doing at least some of that) it's all just lip service and a handy tool with which to bash one another over the head. The correct term is climate change. It is also unrealistic to assume everyone is going get with the program and do what needs to be done, So what you do, is do what you can and chip away at the resistance of those doing nothing. Because doing something is always going to be better than doing nothing. And in time others will get with the program, either by choice or gently forced to by laws and technology. Because what is the alternative? No, not always. That seems to be the mantra of the Left and many times the "doing something" just to do something IS useless, not cost effective or even effective at all. As in doesn't accomplish the stated goal. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on May 29, 2018 3:39:56 GMT
So, since not everyone is vegetarian we shouldn’t do anything? I don’t eat red meat and I won’t buy it or cook it for anyone in my family. I haven’t for over 30 years. So, please, tell me why you should be allowed to have plastic bags and why they are more important to you then the planet we live one. I am absolutely NOT saying that. What I am saying is that I get frustrated by what seems to me an obsession with the small things (plastic bags, straws, etc.) that would undoubtedly help at least in a tiny way to stay the destruction of our planet, but few are willing to make the BIG changes that would help in major ways. And Skellington, good for you for having made that change. I would be willing--due to the fact that you walk the walk--to listen to what YOU have to say about other changes. It's the people who want to legislate the dinky changes but are selfish enough to refuse to change the BIG stuff (that not only would help save the planet, but would also decrease worldwide hunger in a huge way) that I have no time for.
Yes, this is kind of a hobbyhorse of mine, so forgive me for the strong words. But truly, no one will ever convince me that they are true apostles of working towards a "green" planet while still consuming meat.
Regarding straws they are not just wasteful they are dangerous to animals. Seems that is absolutely what you said. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 3:41:43 GMT
No, it's not nihilist thinking? No, that's not what you're saying? For someone who gets so testy about other miscontruing what she says, you sure don't state your positions clearly. By the by (not directed to you), one of the top ways to reduce your carbon footprint is by having one less child. Reasonable access to birth control and allowing women to decide the vacancy status of their uterus for themselves would sure go a long way to accomplish that. No was the answer to the question portion of your post which then makes the nihilistic comment moot.
ETA since this quote didn't pick up the original, you posted: So because nobody is willing to do everything in order to reverse the effects, everybody should do nothing so we can get to the inevitable end faster? That's some real nihilist thinking there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 3:42:29 GMT
Because you didn't correct the person who sides with you who called it global warming BEFORE scrubologist did. Which shows it was just a finger pointing move on your part when you insist someone you DON'T agree with be corrected, and you don't "correct" someone you agree with who did the exact same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Clair on May 29, 2018 3:44:18 GMT
We talk and talk about climate change and how humans can change it. But really we are only willing to take tiny little steps (such as forcibly removing plastic grocery bags from people). But few are willing to make the major changes--such as switching to a vegetarian diet. The BBC recently published an article that stated that "In the US, for example, an average family of four emits more greenhouse gases because of the meat they eat than from driving two cars – but it is cars, not steaks, that regularly come up in discussions about global warming." Marco Springmann, a research fellow at the Oxford Martin School’s Future of Food programme, tried to quantify just how much better the world would be if we went vegetarian, he and his colleagues built computer models that predicted what would happen if everyone became vegetarian by 2050. The results indicate that – largely thanks to the elimination of red meat – food-related emissions would drop by about 60%. If the world went vegan instead, emissions declines would be around 70% I'll be frank here--I have little respect for those who try to take away my plastic bags or plastic straws (by LAW no less) and still demand their meat. When those of you who are clinging to your steaks are willing to let them go, I'll talk to you about plastic grocery bags which account for a MUCH smaller emission footprint that your meat does. Meat eating not only is detrimental to our health overall, but it adds to climate change and worldwide hunger. If you want to change the world for future generations, stop eating meat. I think you are a bit misguided comparing banning bags to eating vegetarian. In California, the main reason for the ban was to reduce litter. Since the ban, my town has seen a large reduction trash on the beaches. The thin bags blow away so easily and are always blown up against the the houses along the sand or blown into the water. I don’t see this happening much anymore. My town banned bags before the ban went statewide. We are also pushing for the straw ban. |
|
|
|
Post by peatlejuice on May 29, 2018 3:45:14 GMT
No, it's not nihilist thinking? No, that's not what you're saying? For someone who gets so testy about other miscontruing what she says, you sure don't state your positions clearly. By the by (not directed to you), one of the top ways to reduce your carbon footprint is by having one less child. Reasonable access to birth control and allowing women to decide the vacancy status of their uterus for themselves would sure go a long way to accomplish that. No was the answer to the question portion of your post which then makes the nihilistic comment moot. Sigh. So what was your point, then, if not to claim that we can't/won't fix things so there's no point in doing the minor things? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 3:46:46 GMT
What was also inevitable was someone — probably not the first or last someone — would come along with the misguided interpretation on what I said as advocating doing nothing or doing worse. Brava for leading the way on that. The personal insults? In your endless quest to make the world a better place, did those serve? Regarding doing nothing or doing worse, point taken. So, since we are all going to die, should we not go to the doctor? Should we not take medicine when we are sick? Should we not exercise to stay healthy? Is that analogy up to your standards? Insulting is exactly how you meant that to be. Your own words show it and that it's precisely the reason you said it. "I didn’t insult you, I just quoted your words from an earlier post. If you found it insulting when said to you, don’t you think everyone you said it to before probably found it insulting?" |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 3:48:33 GMT
Because you didn't correct the person who sides with you who called it global warming BEFORE scrubologist did. Which shows it was just a finger pointing move on your part when you insist someone you DON'T agree with be corrected, and you don't "correct" someone you agree with who did the exact same thing. I only get a blank quote on this, so I never saw this question. Call it whatever you like, it doesn't change the point. That's how it's immaterial to this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on May 29, 2018 3:51:14 GMT
We talk and talk about climate change and how humans can change it. But really we are only willing to take tiny little steps (such as forcibly removing plastic grocery bags from people). But few are willing to make the major changes--such as switching to a vegetarian diet. The BBC recently published an article that stated that "In the US, for example, an average family of four emits more greenhouse gases because of the meat they eat than from driving two cars – but it is cars, not steaks, that regularly come up in discussions about global warming." Marco Springmann, a research fellow at the Oxford Martin School’s Future of Food programme, tried to quantify just how much better the world would be if we went vegetarian, he and his colleagues built computer models that predicted what would happen if everyone became vegetarian by 2050. The results indicate that – largely thanks to the elimination of red meat – food-related emissions would drop by about 60%. If the world went vegan instead, emissions declines would be around 70% I'll be frank here--I have little respect for those who try to take away my plastic bags or plastic straws (by LAW no less) and still demand their meat. When those of you who are clinging to your steaks are willing to let them go, I'll talk to you about plastic grocery bags which account for a MUCH smaller emission footprint that your meat does. Meat eating not only is detrimental to our health overall, but it adds to climate change and worldwide hunger. If you want to change the world for future generations, stop eating meat. I think you are a bit misguided comparing banning bags to eating vegetarian. In California, the main reason for the ban was to reduce litter. Since the ban, my town has seen a large reduction trash on the beaches. The thin bags blow away so easily and are always blown up against the the houses along the sand or blown into the water. I don’t see this happening much anymore. My town banned bags before the ban went statewide. We are also pushing for the straw ban. Well, I can't argue with that. They DO cause litter and if that is the reason for banning, I'd give it some consideration. I just wonder what people will use instead for their trash.We can't get rid of trash--there has to be a reasonable way to resolve that issue. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 3:55:38 GMT
You can't be seriously downplaying pointing a gun at a child and terrorizing him?!!! , she isn’t downplaying anything, she said they are not the same thing. Do you seriously not see the difference? And even if you think they are equal situations since when does two wrongs make a right? I don’t see anywhere where she condoned the actions of what happened to Elian Gonzales. Reading comprehension is a good thing, And "You have to admit it’s not the same thing as taking a child from his parent and then losing him in a bureaucracy or worse." most certainly is downplaying one over the other. Reading comprehension is a good thing, |
|
|
|
Post by Clair on May 29, 2018 3:59:21 GMT
I think you are a bit misguided comparing banning bags to eating vegetarian. In California, the main reason for the ban was to reduce litter. Since the ban, my town has seen a large reduction trash on the beaches. The thin bags blow away so easily and are always blown up against the the houses along the sand or blown into the water. I don’t see this happening much anymore. My town banned bags before the ban went statewide. We are also pushing for the straw ban. Well, I can't argue with that. They DO cause litter and if that is the reason for banning, I'd give it some consideration. I just wonder what people will use instead for their trash.We can't get rid of trash--there has to be a reasonable way to resolve that issue. I believe it’s better to use bags made for trash rather than single use plastics from the store. It’s a small added household expense but it’s better than having bags everywhere. You’d also be surprised how many bags you accumulate from stores that still provide them. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 4:04:53 GMT
I believe it’s better to use bags made for trash rather than single use plastics from the store. It’s a small added household expense but it’s better than having bags everywhere. You’d also be surprised how many bags you accumulate from stores that still provide them. How are the plastic trash bags you buy in a box from the store different than the ones you carry your groceries home from the store in and then later use for trash bags. No snark intended here, serious question. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 4:06:07 GMT
I'm exhausted and have spent way too much time on computers today. I may or may not take up this mantle again tomorrow.
Everyone have a good night.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 4:07:37 GMT
I'm exhausted and have spent way too much time on computers today. I may or may not take up this mantle again tomorrow. Everyone have a good night. Have a good night.  |
|
|
|
Post by peano on May 29, 2018 4:22:06 GMT
I think you are a bit misguided comparing banning bags to eating vegetarian. In California, the main reason for the ban was to reduce litter. Since the ban, my town has seen a large reduction trash on the beaches. The thin bags blow away so easily and are always blown up against the the houses along the sand or blown into the water. I don’t see this happening much anymore. My town banned bags before the ban went statewide. We are also pushing for the straw ban. Well, I can't argue with that. They DO cause litter and if that is the reason for banning, I'd give it some consideration. I just wonder what people will use instead for their trash.We can't get rid of trash--there has to be a reasonable way to resolve that issue. From what I understand, the impetus for banning the use of plastic bags in my town is the impact on the ocean and ocean life, and ultimately humans. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 4:55:15 GMT
Because you didn't correct the person who sides with you who called it global warming BEFORE scrubologist did. Which shows it was just a finger pointing move on your part when you insist someone you DON'T agree with be corrected, and you don't "correct" someone you agree with who did the exact same thing. It took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you were trying to say. I think you are saying because I did not specifically correct the one or maybe two others on this thread who used the term “global warming” but did with Scrubologist I was “finger pointing”. Did you miss the fact there was more to my post then the correct name was climate change? When I read a thread I start from the most current post and work my way back. I had not read the previous offender and if I had, unless I had something else to say, I wouldn’t have posted just to tell them the correct name. So it appears you got all huffy for nothing. But if it makes you feel better... Note to all: The correct term is “climate change” and not “global warming”. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on May 29, 2018 5:19:29 GMT
Note to all: The correct term is “climate change” and not “global warming”. Well, that's what it is now. In the 1970's, the correct term was Global Cooling. Then the correct term was Global Warming. I just want to know when in the history of the earth has the climate not been globally changing. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 5:53:46 GMT
Note to all: The correct term is “climate change” and not “global warming”. Well, that's what it is now. In the 1970's, the correct term was Global Cooling. Then the correct term was Global Warming. I just want to know when in the history of the earth has the climate not been globally changing. Well things evolve as scientists learn more. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 6:07:26 GMT
Because you didn't correct the person who sides with you who called it global warming BEFORE scrubologist did. Which shows it was just a finger pointing move on your part when you insist someone you DON'T agree with be corrected, and you don't "correct" someone you agree with who did the exact same thing. It took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you were trying to say. I think you are saying because I did not specifically correct the one or maybe two others on this thread who used the term “global warming” but did with Scrubologist I was “finger pointing”. Did you miss the fact there was more to my post then the correct name was climate change? When I read a thread I start from the most current post and work my way back. I had not read the previous offender and if I had, unless I had something else to say, I wouldn’t have posted just to tell them the correct name. So it appears you got all huffy for nothing.But if it makes you feel better... Note to all: The correct term is “climate change” and not “global warming”.I didn't get huffy at all.  You asked "How is it immaterial to the discussion to correctly call it by the proper name?" And I answered it. If the only way you can deal with the answer is to come up with the scenario that you read a thread backwards and throw out the handslap that I got huffy, then that's your problem, not mine. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 6:54:25 GMT
It took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you were trying to say. I think you are saying because I did not specifically correct the one or maybe two others on this thread who used the term “global warming” but did with Scrubologist I was “finger pointing”. Did you miss the fact there was more to my post then the correct name was climate change? When I read a thread I start from the most current post and work my way back. I had not read the previous offender and if I had, unless I had something else to say, I wouldn’t have posted just to tell them the correct name. So it appears you got all huffy for nothing.But if it makes you feel better... Note to all: The correct term is “climate change” and not “global warming”.I didn't get huffy at all.  You asked "How is it immaterial to the discussion to correctly call it by the proper name?" And I answered it. If the only way you can deal with the answer is to come up with the scenario that you read a thread backwards and throw out the handslap that I got huffy, then that's your problem, not mine. Let’s see, I am sitting here tonight, binge watching Midsomer Murders, iPad in hand and I’m looking around and guess what I don’t see? You. So now I’m curious, how do you think you know which way I read the posts? Please enlighten. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 7:01:02 GMT
I didn't get huffy at all. You asked "How is it immaterial to the discussion to correctly call it by the proper name?" And I answered it. If the only way you can deal with the answer is to come up with the scenario that you read a thread backwards and throw out the handslap that I got huffy, then that's your problem, not mine. Let’s see, I am sitting here tonight, binge watching Midsomer Murders, iPad in hand and I’m looking around and guess what I don’t see? You. So now I’m curious, how do you think you know which way I read the posts? Please enlighten. I never said I know which way you read a post. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on May 29, 2018 7:28:26 GMT
We talk and talk about climate change and how humans can change it. But really we are only willing to take tiny little steps (such as forcibly removing plastic grocery bags from people). But few are willing to make the major changes--such as switching to a vegetarian diet. The BBC recently published an article that stated that "In the US, for example, an average family of four emits more greenhouse gases because of the meat they eat than from driving two cars – but it is cars, not steaks, that regularly come up in discussions about global warming." Marco Springmann, a research fellow at the Oxford Martin School’s Future of Food programme, tried to quantify just how much better the world would be if we went vegetarian, he and his colleagues built computer models that predicted what would happen if everyone became vegetarian by 2050. The results indicate that – largely thanks to the elimination of red meat – food-related emissions would drop by about 60%. If the world went vegan instead, emissions declines would be around 70% I'll be frank here--I have little respect for those who try to take away my plastic bags or plastic straws (by LAW no less) and still demand their meat. When those of you who are clinging to your steaks are willing to let them go, I'll talk to you about plastic grocery bags which account for a MUCH smaller emission footprint that your meat does. Meat eating not only is detrimental to our health overall, but it adds to climate change and worldwide hunger. If you want to change the world for future generations, stop eating meat. I don't know if this is in response to my question to you or not but I'll respond anyway. On this specific area I think it's about education. Stopping the use of plastic bags is easy to understand and we are all seeing the pictures of turtles with plastic wrapped around them, vast floating masses of plastic in the sea etc. People get that. The same can't be said about meat and it's production - at least in the UK. It's not something that I think is so easily 'seen' by the public and I think there needs to be more visible campaigns to get this message across. And to refer back to my original question - industry has much such a big role to play, (burning fossil fuels being just one thing) and this is why I asked if you were happy with the role the US is playing in this regard. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 23:47:13 GMT
I posted this in a discussion in the Trump bashing thread, but thought I'd post it here for those of you who don't read that thread and anyone who might not be aware of this:
I've looked more into the separating of families of those illegally crossing the border and it doesn't come from Trump. It's the Flores settlement agreement that originated under Bill Clinton done in 1997. Trump was not president then, so that's probably why he's blaming the democrats. By law all UNACCOMPANIED minors must be remanded out of custody to someone else (presumably a relative or foster care) must happen within 20 days. It's been the law for the last 20 years or so.
In 2008 and reinstated again in 2016 (under Obama) the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled by Judge Andrew Hurwitz ruled the 1997 ruling now also applied to ACCOMPANIED minors. Again he wasn't president then so more than likely why Trump is blaming Democrats.
And the pictures of kids in cages that everyone is attributing to Trump are from when Obama was president.
Now I think Trump, as president, could probably do something about it, but I think like the other administrations before him, he's using it as a deterrent for crossing illegally.
|
|
|
|
Post by 50offscrapper on May 30, 2018 4:19:23 GMT
That's nice. Since I had a DACA recipient living in my house for the last 9 months, it was much different for me. If people from my ultra conservative, right wing area of the country wanted to vocally demand that people like the hard-working, devout, beautiful girl that was living with me deserved to be sent back to her country of origin - despite the fact that she'd only been there 1 time in her 22 years since she came here as a toddler, then I'd try to have a conversation. If they still insisted that DACA recipients needed to get kicked out, then I lost interest in a friendship. There are some things that are non-negotiable for me. Compassion is one of them. So you'll be voting out all of the Democrats who refused to acknowledge that the country voted in a president who wanted to tighten our borders against illegal immigration and let DACA suffer because of it? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer "reluctantly put the border wall on the table for discussion" in January in exchange for DACA protection, but then he rescinded it. " The wall offer's off the table" <--- a NY Times link, for those who discriminate. --- Note that the article further states that Schumer's "offer" wasn't even made to begin with and was said just as an attempt to mislead the public, according to the White House. Some of us still remember REPUBLICAN President Reagan's massive amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for those who were here illegally. It was supposed to be conditional and never to be repeated. That worked out just super! So, let's do it again! Let's believe all the rhetoric, give the politicians whatever they want now and just wait for them to do the right thing and actually do what they were elected to do some far off day in the future. Along with knowing your DACA friend, have you lost anyone recently to a heroin overdose? Do you know any families that have suffered horribly from its hideous resurgence? Or do you know anyone who has been at the "mercy" of MS13? Maybe, just maybe, this is a far more complicated situation than the talking heads present. And maybe, just maybe, people who differ with you on the best way to take care of all of our citizens - those who are presently citizens and those who are working their way through the system to become citizens - actually do care. And maybe, just maybe, some of those who you agree with have intentions that are a little less laudable than you are willing to consider. Or, you can stick with the Democrats good, Republicans bad monotone and make your line in the sand a more permanent border between you and "them." Not sure I follow how heroin addiction has anything to do with immigration. Are you saying immigrants forced heroin down someone’s veins? So when someone dies from a heroin overdose, it’s now someone else’s fault? But when we have unequal education or unequal justice, we tell people to take “personal” responsibility. I am very sorry for anyone who has lost someone to heroin addiction. Can’t imagine the pain. Are there criminal immigrants, yes but at no greater rate than US born criminals. Think of all that immigrants have created. Do you believe food costs, housing costs, hotel’s costs are not lower due to immigrants? Could the US be a technological power house if not for immigrants? Immigrants contribute to our high standard of living. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 15:55:32 GMT
Why does the "conservative thread" feel like an inquisition all the time? Do you believe this? Do you believe that?? Geeze. Essentially, the differences are here: www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/"Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems." |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 16:21:42 GMT
Why does the "conservative thread" feel like an inquisition all the time? Do you believe this? Do you believe that?? Geeze. Essentially, the differences are here: www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/"Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems." How right you are! |
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on May 30, 2018 16:24:47 GMT
Why does the "conservative thread" feel like an inquisition all the time? Do you believe this? Do you believe that?? Geeze. Essentially, the differences are here: www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/"Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems." It’s exhausting and of course changes the feel and tone of the thread. I enjoy just coming here chatting until the inquisition (great description) begins. Then I’m out for a few until it gets back to its self. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 16:35:38 GMT
Why does the "conservative thread" feel like an inquisition all the time? Do you believe this? Do you believe that?? Geeze. Essentially, the differences are here: www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/"Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems." It’s exhausting and of course changes the feel and tone of the thread. I enjoy just coming here chatting until the inquisition (great description) begins. Then I’m out for a few until it gets back to its self.That's exactly how I am, lol. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 16:49:27 GMT
I came across a thread on the College Confidential site a few days ago that I thought was interesting. It was titled: "Would It Hurt to List Republican Club" on college applications. It was nothing I'd thought about, especially since my DS isn't politically involved in anything.
I'd say about half of the responses suggested leaving that information off given the current political climate and the blowback onto republicans/conservatives, etc. Others suggested colleges are open to diversity of thought, etc. and no one in admissions would deny admission because of someone's political beliefs. Others thought it wasn't worth taking the chance because a lot of colleges at least seem to be pretty liberal with their professors, etc. and you'd never know who was making the decisions.
I/we'll never know if political beliefs would actually play a part in acceptance or denial to colleges, but just the fact that this is where we are as a country is pretty sad.
Here's the link to the thread if anyone's interested:
I stumbled across that site about a month ago, and only read, didn't sign up. The thread I linked was locked I'll assume because of politics or nasty comments? I have no clue.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 17:07:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 16:52:05 GMT
Why does the "conservative thread" feel like an inquisition all the time? Do you believe this? Do you believe that?? Geeze. Essentially, the differences are here: www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/"Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems." It’s exhausting and of course changes the feel and tone of the thread. I enjoy just coming here chatting until the inquisition (great description) begins. Then I’m out for a few until it gets back to its self. exactly. Everybody knows the difference between conservatives and liberals--and what each believes, so when the questions start, ya know it's for emphasis in the differences. The thing to remember is God made us all--oh yeah, it's not "cool" to bring up God in a thread either--so sorry.
|
|
Unlike the rest of us that are just frittering our time away. 
