Iwo Jima Vets Blast Time's "Enviromental" Cover

[2861U2]

Really. Light bulbs? A total abuse of government?!

Yes.

And it's always funny to me when conservatives get pissed about their "personal choices" being taken away when it's about something as trivial as light bulbs. :snicker: When many of them are all about taking my "personal choices" away from me.

And it's funny how liberals, when it comes to global warming, believe the government knows best, and the government should be involved in all aspects of life, yet many of them oppose the 2nd Amendment given in the Constitution and many of them want the government to stay out of their personal lives and allow marriage to be redefined.

 

[2861U2]

And you have no problem with the government forcing things on others with regards to marriage, abortion, and so on?

There's quite a difference in the government supporting a baby's right to live (or, excuse me, you guys like "a woman's right to choose") and outlawing a type of light bulb and accusing me of hating the environment.

 

[martha]

many of them want the government to stay out of their personal lives and allow marriage to be redefined.

You don't even see the irony in this quote, do you.

 

[martha]

There's quite a difference in the government supporting a baby's right to live (or, excuse me, you guys like "a woman's right to choose") and outlawing a type of light bulb ....

Yeah, there is a difference. I'm glad you see it.

 

[redhotswami]

There's quite a difference in the government supporting a baby's right to live (or, excuse me, you guys like "a woman's right to choose") and outlawing a type of light bulb and accusing me of hating the environment.

Well good thing you're fighting the good fight to end all abortions so that future children can live underwater. But then you don't even believe in evolution, so you can't really hope that they'll adapt.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Again, I'm a fan of trees.

You keep missing my point so I guess I'll be literal: Why are you against practices that help conserve the environment, including but not limited to: trees, the rainforests (and therby preserving the numerous endangared species), the air we all breathe, the oceans that house the majority of the worlds animals (and by the way, the ocean some of us swim in, and I can attest to it's growing filth over the the years), the dependence on fossil fuels that are steadily increasing in price, both monetary and human, etc?
Forget that the government has anything to do with it and just think about the personal choice you have open to you right now to do something better for the environment.

Well that's a dumb hypothetical, so it's hard to answer. What I don't like is the government telling me what to do and the government outlawing the sale of light bulbs, eliminating my personal choice. It's a total abuse of government.

The federal govenrment says replacing one incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent in every household would save enough energy to light 2.5 million homes for a year.

How is this a bad thing? Because it eliminates your option of buying cheaper light bulbs that won't last as long in the long run? We can do better than that. Think about your own purchases, aside from the environment. Do you buy things based on how quickly they will satisfy your need at the moment, or do you think about the long run?

Fine. But I don't want the government forcing things on me, and saying I hate the earth if I don't comply.

Nah, they aren't the ones saying you hate the earth. I'm the one who is saying that you hate the earth because you can't look past these petty partisan differences to ensure a cleaner earth that you live in and share with an infinite number of species.
I'm sure you have no problem with the government asking the taxpayers to pay for a war that the majority of the U.S. does not endorse, but we are going to do it anyway.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And it's funny how liberals, when it comes to global warming, believe the government knows best, and the government should be involved in all aspects of life, yet many of them oppose the 2nd Amendment given in the Constitution and many of them want the government to stay out of their personal lives and allow marriage to be redefined.

The ends always justify the means if you believe in the cause, but I don't think that your cause has freedom as the end product; the disdain towards sexual liberties.

Gay marriage has no effect on you whatsoever, in fact if they stop having to protest about it I am sure that you will feel more comfortable as you shall have to read about those others even less. Ending a form of discrimination by the state is a pro-liberty thing.

But there is a type of conservatives for whom preserving the best of the past is replaced with reactionary sentiment, and thats plain ugly.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And you have no problem with the government forcing things on others with regards to marriage, abortion, and so on?

I think it is time for you to wake up and realize you live in a global community and consider making decisions that benefit others besides just yourself. Conservative parties in other countries are also pro-environment. Your "partisan" labeling is just a piss poor excuse so that you can continue to live your selfish lifestyle. Like I said, I've been to poor communities where people don't have much, yet you don't see them complaining about light bulbs. They too are doing what they can to preserve and consume less energy.

I will only do it if it is in my self interest, I could help the environment a lot more and get a lot more value for money installing double glazed windows and getting curtains to cut down my heating and air conditioning use. I think that it is healthy to look at energy use involved in production of certain items and take the whole lifetime energy required before jumping on any feel good bandwagon; in some instances the conservative approach may be greener than the seemingly better alternative (but that is a consequence of the economy of scale so it can only become cheaper when everybody embraces the new - in that respect I think state coercion will work but that says nothing of the ethics of that force).

 

[DrTeeth]

I like this cover

 

[anitram]

Outrageous.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

 

[Diemen]

Outrageous.

How dare she cheapen the great sacrifice of our soldiers by comparing them to a bunch of kids.

 

[indra]

I don't like liberals (who are supposed to be all about personal liberty, right?) telling me what cars to drive, and what light bulbs I can and can't have, and what foods I should and shouldn't be eating, and the list goes on and on of all the things the left says I can't do/have.

Fine. As long as you are willing to NEVER tell me or anyone else what I/they can or cannot do. Period.

Are you willing to do that?

If so, fine. Drive whatever car you want. Eat whatever you want. Use whatever lightbulb you want. Do whatever you want. But don't you even think about ever restricting anyone else's right to do whatever they want to also.

 

[BVS]

^Not gonna happen...

This is how neo-cons paint themselves in a corner.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What makes you think that he is a neo-con? theo-con perhaps.

 

[melon]

This is how neo-cons paint themselves in a corner.

He isn't a neocon. They generally have a better pedigree, and are mostly secular in their arguments. We just have an old-fashioned social conservative here.

Social conservatives are generally ones who want the state to limit the rights of "other people," if it fits their view of the world, but then wants "the government" to leave them alone and not restrict their right to do anything whatsoever.

What they will never learn is that they can't have it both ways.

 

[the iron horse]

Wow. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I agree with the vets.

"there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change"..... WHAT?

I agree.

I have read this thread a couple times and its amazing how you seem to be the only sceptic.

What's wrong with you?

Why do you refuse to swim with the crowd?


Propaganda is easy to salute.
Truth needs a thinking person and a shovel to toss out the lies.

 

[financeguy]

He isn't a neocon. They generally have a better pedigree, and are mostly secular in their arguments. We just have an old-fashioned social conservative here.

Social conservatives are generally ones who want the state to limit the rights of "other people," if it fits their view of the world, but then wants "the government" to leave them alone and not restrict their right to do anything whatsoever.

What they will never learn is that they can't have it both ways.

Neither of which has anything got to do with genuine conservatism....granted, it is partly the fault of 'genuine' conservatives that the name of conservatism has been debauched, disgraced, and dragged through the mud by a combination of imperialist neo-cons and bigoted theo-cons.

 

[melon]

I agree.

I have read this thread a couple times and its amazing how you seem to be the only sceptic.

What's wrong with you?

Why do you refuse to swim with the crowd?


Propaganda is easy to salute.
Truth needs a thinking person and a shovel to toss out the lies.

Teenagers are rebellious for rebellion's sake. Maturity involves being rebellious for substantive reasons.

The irony of all of this is that 2861U2 is angry that global warming is considered more important than the War on Terror. Yet many neoconservatives, who more than support the War on Terror, are also quite supportive of the "solutions for global warming." That's not because they've embraced environmentalism; it's because the solutions offered to end global warming are coincidentally also solutions that would give the U.S. energy independence and freedom from oil. That means, without the Middle East holding the black crack over our heads, we can finally be free of these unsavory, undemocratic, and downright oppressive nations. We can then have more of an upper hand in diplomacy too. Right now? We most certainly cannot confront Saudi Arabia, for instance, because we are extremely dependent on their oil and have been for decades.

The solutions to the War on Terror and global warming are inextricably tied together.

Now how's that for "rebellion"?

 

[melon]

Neither of which has anything got to do with genuine conservatism....granted, it is partly the fault of 'genuine' conservatives that the name of conservatism has been debauched, disgraced, and dragged through the mud by a combination of imperialist neo-cons and bigoted theo-cons.

I've pretty much surmised that "global conservatism" is about as murky and meaningless as "global liberalism" is.

Talk about relativistically-defined terms!

 

[2861U2]

Teenagers are rebellious for rebellion's sake. Maturity involves being rebellious for substantive reasons.

So are you saying that there can't possibly be any young, global warming skeptics who have done research and made up their own minds? Are you saying that anyone like me is just being rebellious and refusing to accept almighty science?

Let me tell you about my life, and maybe you'll change your perception of teenagers (which I no longer am, by the way- I'm 20 ): I'm a Christian, a conservative, I don't drink, do drugs, smoke, or use foul language. You still feel I'm "rebellious?"

Do you think anyone who differs in opinion from you is just "rebellious" or stupid? I sure hope not. I have done plenty of research and thinking for myself which have led me to take on all of the above attributes which I hold dear, and I can give you darn good reasons.

Maturity involves thinking for yourself, and not just conforming for conforming's sake.

 

[redhotswami]

i still am waitnf for your to post yor peer reviewred resaerch articles that you find so convicneing

 

[2861U2]

i still am waitnf for your to post yor peer reviewred resaerch articles that you find so convicneing

Were all those grammatical errors intentional?


I'm tired and I'm going to bed, so I'll post all that stuff later. Let me just say that all of us should be skeptical of science. Science once told us the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe and that Pluto was a planet, and if you disagreed with any of this you were some kind of wacko. Not to mention that we seem to be going through "scares" of global warming and cooling every few decades, and the science is far from conclusive. So why do you guys find it so disgusting and unbelievable that there are global warming skeptics in existence? This "issue" has demonstrated brilliantly that liberals do not believe in personal liberty, and that they do not celebrate the open and free expression of differing opinions. Liberals strive for everyone to conform and not question science and want everything to be absolutely perfect.

 

[melon]

This "issue" has demonstrated brilliantly that liberals do not believe in personal liberty, and that they do not celebrate the open and free expression of differing opinions. Liberals strive for everyone to conform and not question science and want everything to be absolutely perfect.

That's full of crap, and you know it.

"Freedom of speech" is a two-way street.

1) You have your right to say whatever you want, no matter how ridiculous it might seem.

But...and here's the unexpected twist...

2) We have the right to say whatever we want in rebuttal, up to and including calling it crap.

It does not mean the right to have unchallenged opinions.

Isn't free speech grand?

 

[melon]

So are you saying that there can't possibly be any young, global warming skeptics who have done research and made up their own minds? Are you saying that anyone like me is just being rebellious and refusing to accept almighty science?

There's only one way to find out, and that's to post your sources to be open for scrutiny.

Let me tell you about my life, and maybe you'll change your perception of teenagers (which I no longer am, by the way- I'm 20 ): I'm a Christian, a conservative, I don't drink, do drugs, smoke, or use foul language. You still feel I'm "rebellious?"

Yes, they call it "Straight Edge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_edge

It's the counter-counterculture!

Don't worry. As a teenager, I was all those things, except politically conservative. I'm still not politically conservative today; just what I'd consider "less liberal."

 

[maycocksean]

Wow. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I agree with the vets.

"there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change"..... WHAT?

Have you read "Flags of our Fathers"?

You do know that the famous Iwo Jima photo was staged , right, and that the photo was used as a propaganda tool to drum up money for bond drives.

Seems like a whole lot of fuss over not much.

As for "thinking for yourself" and whatnot, you've shown very little evidence of that. You seem like a smart guy and all but you seem to be totally in the thrall of an ideology that's been fed to you.

 

[2861U2]

There's only one way to find out, and that's to post your sources to be open for scrutiny.

I will. Give me a couple days, though. I'm home from school this weekend, and I have a ton of things to do. I'd rather not spend the entire weekend at the computer responding to however many people.

 

[martha]

Let me just say that all of us should be skeptical of science. Science once told us the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe

And when those beliefs were challenged, the scientists who challenged them were persecuted by the Church, weren't they? Isn't it funny that your two examples were from centuries ago, and involve the Church maintaining those "scientific" beliefs? I bet you love science when you go to the health clinic on campus and get medicine to make you well.

This "issue" has demonstrated brilliantly that liberals do not believe in personal liberty, and that they do not celebrate the open and free expression of differing opinions.

Says the guy who thinks our present government, the one restricting free speech and other Constitutional rights, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You really do know how to make a girl laugh.

Liberals strive for everyone to conform and not question science and want everything to be absolutely perfect.

Do your college papers include such amazing generalizations? Does your "research"?

 

[redhotswami]

Were all those grammatical errors intentional?


I'm tired and I'm going to bed, so I'll post all that stuff later. Let me just say that all of us should be skeptical of science. Science once told us the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe and that Pluto was a planet, and if you disagreed with any of this you were some kind of wacko. Not to mention that we seem to be going through "scares" of global warming and cooling every few decades, and the science is far from conclusive. So why do you guys find it so disgusting and unbelievable that there are global warming skeptics in existence? This "issue" has demonstrated brilliantly that liberals do not believe in personal liberty, and that they do not celebrate the open and free expression of differing opinions. Liberals strive for everyone to conform and not question science and want everything to be absolutely perfect.

No, it was not. Moving on...

I think your last part here shows just how much you've polarized this into a partisan issue. Science itself is based on questioning and testing. There are laws, then theories, and so on. You remain steadfast in a text that was put together by man, yet science pokes at all corners of the world to uncover more about it. It's a shame you have no faith in it. Science can save you or a loved one when you're ill. Science has led you to become more dependent on technology (I know this because you have said you are in university, where constant computer communication is a daily way of life.) It sounds to me like you're cherry-picking here.

And I don't know what "inconclusive" reports you are talking about. Everything that I've read that has been peer reviewed and published in legitimate journals has said the same. The only contrary opinions I have seen myself are from blogs, which are about as reliable as Wikipedia. Anyone can post anything on the web. Real stuff (in any field, not just science but for many liberal arts too) is often theory based and reviewed by other experts. So I do want to see these articles when you post them. If you've found them more convincing than others than I want to see their sources myself.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

Outrageous.

I just spit out my water. So nice for Lynne Cheney to be all PC and shit. She's got both boys and girls; she's got an African-American kid, an Asian-American kid, and a Hispanic kid. She's even got a redhead. I feel so honored.

On-topic: The Time Cover
Yes, the job of the media is to inform, but sometimes it has to shock, titillate and grab our attention to bring light to different issues. If there was just a tree on the cover, it would be very ho-hum; but this cover is a bold statement. And yes, I understand that many people are going to be upset. I've been upset by a lot of visual images I've seen in the media too.

But regarding global warming. I used to write copy for a website that discussed environmental issues. I learned so much. What is the big deal some conservatives have about caring about the environment? Do you have your own air to breathe? Do you have your own water to drink, bathe and cook with? Even some right-wing Christians are opening their minds to saving the environment. I was watching the TV program "Now" and it featured a segment about Evangelical Christians getting more involved in environmental causes. Many of them live in rural communities so they see first hand how harmful environmental practices and policies mess up their hometowns. One woman called the earth "God's body." I thought that was a lovely way of putting it.