It's been said that liberals believe and act like history started yesterday. You go a long way towards proving that argument.

@Knixon said:

It's been said that liberals believe and act like history started yesterday. You go a long way towards proving that argument.

It's also been said conservatives don't believe facts that conflict with their beliefs.

The problem there is that what many people often call "facts" really aren't.

It's like Reagan famously said. "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they "know" so much that isn't so."

@Knixon said:

The problem there is that what many people often call "facts" really aren't.

It's like Reagan famously said. "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they "know" so much that isn't so."

Examples? I'll give you some of the reverse.

Climate Change. It's real. 99% of scientists have concluded humans are damaging the earth. But in order to correct that mistake means we'd have to change the way we do business so conservatives fight that truth even after all the increased hurricanes and new hottest year records being broken year after year. Even saying businesses will make less is false because there's money to be made in renewable energies.

Abortion. Conservatives say they are pro life and hate abortion. Statistically, increased access to condoms and contraceptives lead to lower abortion rates and reduces the spread of STD's, but conservatives refuses to endorse contraceptives. Educating teens about how sex and reproduction works also tends to lead to lower teen pregnancy rates, but conservatives do not endorse sex education. Why?

Welfare. Conservatives claim they're against it yet almost all of the top 10 states that consume the most welfare are red states (Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, West Virginia, South Carolina, Montana, Tennessee, Indiana). I dare the governors of those states to cut welfare spending if they're so anti-welfare.

Not that there aren't contradictions of on the left, but those tend to not be nearly as life-threatening as these three points. I'm just saying, as much as I agree political correctness has gotten out of hand, that's not as important as trying to save the planet, give men and women the tools to stop them from making a baby, or helping people to where they no longer need government assistance.

@cswood said:

@Knixon said:

The problem there is that what many people often call "facts" really aren't.

It's like Reagan famously said. "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they "know" so much that isn't so."

Examples? I'll give you some of the reverse.

Climate Change. It's real. 99% of scientists have concluded humans are damaging the earth. But in order to correct that mistake means we'd have to change the way we do business so conservatives fight that truth even after all the increased hurricanes and new hottest year records being broken year after year. Even saying businesses will make less is false because there's money to be made in renewable energies.

This is one of the least factual of them all, which makes it interesting that you lead with it. Just for starters, the agenda is certainly suspect. 40 years ago the big panic was "global cooling" and "the coming ice age." Strangely enough (but not really), the top prescription for "necessary action" was the same as now: increased government control, over everything. And of course, the new claim started as "global warming." When that became ridiculous because of things like "global warming" conferences having to be cancelled due to SNOW STORMS, "climate change" got substituted. Which was clever, because CLIMATE CHANGES. And so any time it does, people who are so inclined can yell "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! RIGHT NOW! BECAUSE IN TEN YEARSS WE'LL ALL BE DEAD!" Then 10 years later when we're not all dead, well, nothing to see here, move along...

"99% of scientists" doesn't mean much either, because 99% of scientists are not CLIMATE scientists, or even close to it. The main advocates are merely famous, especially by/on the left. Actual CLIMATE scientists, including many at the top of the field, are among the most skeptical. Bjorn Lomborg, for example. Maybe of the others, such as Michael Mann the "hockey stick" guy, have been easily debunked and discredited.

The single biggest problem though, really, is that CLIMATE CHANGES. Always has. If climate ever STOPS changing, THAT'S when you should worry. And the single biggest cause of changing climate, is the SUN. Several centuries ago, Earth was much warmer than it is now. But it must have been cause by all those coal-fired power plants and SUVs being driven around medieval Europe.

This actually explains a lot of it rather well:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

But even if you believe that human activity increases SUN-CAUSED warming by whatever small amount, the question then becomes, would it make any significant difference if ALL human activity stopped TOMORROW - and good luck getting China, India, et al, to go along with that plan - and the realistic answer is no. And of course, even if it did, in another few decades the panic - because some people will find a reason to panic no matter what - will shift back to "global cooling" etc, with the same demands for central government control. Which, by the way, has been proven over and over across history, DOESN'T WORK ANYWAY.

Abortion. Conservatives say they are pro life and hate abortion. Statistically, increased access to condoms and contraceptives lead to lower abortion rates and reduces the spread of STD's, but conservatives refuses to endorse contraceptives. Educating teens about how sex and reproduction works also tends to lead to lower teen pregnancy rates, but conservatives do not endorse sex education. Why?

"Conservatives" don't oppose birth control, except in some cases for things that are actually abortifacient. Catholics among others (including islam at least technically) might oppose "general" birth control, at least officially, but that's a religious position, not a conservative one. Only people who claim to be Catholic (such as Nancy Pelosi) are expected/required to follow that teaching.

Also, I haven't seen any opposition to teaching birth control to teens, at least not recently. But it's a different matter when - for example - early elementary school children are being told about gender issues, anal sex, etc. That's more typically Left, especially lately.

Welfare. Conservatives claim they're against it yet almost all of the top 10 states that consume the most welfare are red states (Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, West Virginia, South Carolina, Montana, Tennessee, Indiana). I dare the governors of those states to cut welfare spending if they're so anti-welfare.

Try workfare, which is a/the conservative position. Aside from actual welfare programs leading to the breakup of the black family over decades and multi-generational poverty - with requirements that the father not be in the home, etc - workfare demonstrated being a huge success. Which Bill Clinton took credit for signing, after vetoing it several times. Then Obama unilaterally changed the law, which was actually beyond his constitutional authority, and the problems increased again.

Not that there aren't contradictions of on the left, but those tend to not be nearly as life-threatening as these three points. I'm just saying, as much as I agree political correctness has gotten out of hand, that's not as important as trying to save the planet, give men and women the tools to stop them from making a baby, or helping people to where they no longer need government assistance.

Some people have extreme ideas of "life-threatening." That college girl who was demanding that other people pay for her contraceptives, might have considered that issue "life-threatening." But as far as I'm concerned she's just another childish lefty loon.

@cswood: You're never going to change Knixon's thinking. That's his problem and people like him. He'll be dead and gone and will dodge the impact of their ignorance.

They could care less about any future generations...including their own. Sad but true.

That's pretty funny, considering the left basically doesn't want there to BE future generations. That's what nonsense like "one child per couple, at most" leads to. "Earth would be better off without people," etc.