Iwo Jima Vets Blast Time's "Enviromental" Cover

[2861U2]

Originally posted by melon


Mind sharing that research then?

I'd be glad too, if someone wants to start a different topic. It seems a little off-topic in this thread.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by indra


Because "we" (ie. many in the US) don't want to change our lifestyle at all. That's why.

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.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by martha


You get all fired up about nearly everything in FYM. You're furious when a Democrat says something lame, you scared when a Democrat says pretty much anything, you get pissed when pretty much anything you disagree with is actually considered by people.

Not everything is worth the high blood pressure.

And over reacting to all this doesn't do you any good when you really do have something to be outraged about.

No, it's only the really stupid, unchallenged lies that I get angry over. 99% of the posts in FYM I disagree with. Doesn't mean I'm sitting here with an angry look on my face all the time.

And when did I ever say I was outraged? I said that if I was a WW2 vet and I saw this magazine, I would be outraged.

[melon]

Originally posted by 2861U2
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.

I guess, then, if it weren't for "the liberals," then you'd still be driving a 7 mpg loud clunker. Even then, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't it Republicans who started the first laws mandating fuel efficiency in the 1970s? That certainly hasn't stopped us from having every type of car under the sun, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for here.

Wasn't it Bush who supported the law phasing out traditional (and, by conservative standards, "traditional" must be better!) light bulbs? A lot of "the liberals" have been decrying this as a token gesture that will have limited results.

I also don't see the GOP pushing to eliminate the food pyramid either. Short of calls against trans fat (which nobody will miss, but still isn't banned everywhere), what other food are "the liberals" preventing you from eating?

Really, I think you're confusing "liberal" with "statist." The GOP is certainly not anti-statist, that's for sure.

[randhail]

Originally posted by 2861U2


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.

It's not so much telling you what you can and can't have as it is about being open to the idea that there is better way of doing things. A way that still lets you have the comforts of modern life, but doesn't blatantly abuse the environment around you. Are you against having clean air to breathe, or clean water to drink, more efficient cars, new means of providing electricity, getting rid of a dependence on the middle east? Or do you believe that those goals are not worth any sacrifice you would may have to make?

It's precisely people like you that caused Time to come out with such a dramatic cover. The people that are so closed minded about the issue, that they openly dismiss anything to do with the environment as junk science or infringing upon your life. Can you see why Time thinks this is such a tough task and went with such bold imagery.

[Tiger Edge]

Originally posted by 2861U2


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.

Then I pose the question again: Why do you hate trees?

If someone says that this light bulb will save 10 trees from destruction (hypotheticals, again) as well as save you $20 a month in electricity bills, why would you keep your old bulbs? Is it out of spite? I'm starting to think it is.

We can be better.

And to further prove that it's not a partisan issue but a worldly issue: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20070301c.html

Hey, look, it calls out Gore in his hypocrisy! Go go go go go!

[2861U2]

Originally posted by PlaTheGreat


Then I pose the question again: Why do you hate trees?

Again, I'm a fan of trees.

Originally posted by PlaTheGreat
If someone says that this light bulb will save 10 trees from destruction (hypotheticals, again) as well as save you $20 a month in electricity bills, why would you keep your old bulbs? Is it out of spite? I'm starting to think it is.

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.

Originally posted by PlaTheGreat

We can be better.

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

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by 2861U2


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.

I don't like being told that I need to respect traditional family values, say no to drugs, not enjoy the benefits of stem cell research, not have sex until marriage and that I must respect a person for their faith.

I especially don't like it when people take those sayings and use government force to coerce me into doing it, to that end mainstream social conservatives have more than enough to answer for.

[martha]

Originally posted by 2861U2

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.

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

This is what I meant earlier. Everything's an extreme with you.



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.

[unico]

Originally posted by 2861U2

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

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.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by martha


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

Yes.

Originally posted by martha
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]

Originally posted by unico


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]

Originally posted by 2861U2
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]

Originally posted by 2861U2


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.

[unico]

Originally posted by 2861U2


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]

Originally posted by 2861U2
[B]

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]

Originally posted by 2861U2


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]

Originally posted by unico


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.