Posted on 11/10/2018 7:04:47 PM PST by NoLibZone
Yeah, you are smoking too much pot or something. Maybe there were some pot grows in the recent fires.
OH, and by the way, changing the subject when you are losing an argument is another liberal go to tactic.
Spinning. Like a top.
Go back and see who changed the subject. I only followed your lead.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to prove how leftist ideology produces the opposite of its claims.
That would be you. The one who brought public health into the argument. When you realized you had no reading comprehension.
You ran to your liberal corner. But... we have to do it for the children.
My position is we have to fight forest fires.
I brought up public health because it demolishes the leftist argument that we shouldn’t fight forest fires.
Leftists go nuts when you point out their hypocrisy, and even more so when you point out their defective ideas.
And you are a hypocrit. First, you were wrong in your first arguments. When you lost that postiion, you went nuts and decided we have to fight forest fires ... for the children after all.
If you don’t enjoy discussions like this one (and I do), never point out the flaws of leftist ideology to a leftist. On a subconscious level, they know it’s true. But they can’t fully admit it to themselves, so it causes great mental conflict in their minds.
They don’t know how to handle it other than to use personal insults.
Brown has had 16 years as Gov over the last 50 years. You’d think he’d could of fixed the problem by now. It’s not like it happened overnight.
Yeah, it is hard to discuss something with someone who has no reading comprehension, and then starts spinning like a top with new reasons that we must do something.
I especially love when liberals whip out the “for the children” argument, like anyone would fight against the “for the children” argument (disguised as public health of course).
You mean in my first post on this thread, post #2?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3704853/posts?page=2#2
Where I said the new idea to “let the fires burn” was the stupidest thing I ever heard?
If you don’t enjoy discussions like this one (and I do), never point out the flaws of leftist ideology to a leftist. On a subconscious level, they know it’s true. But they can’t fully admit it to themselves, so it causes great mental conflict in their minds.
They don’t know how to handle it other than to use personal insults.
Here’s what finally brings people to their senses—what really makes them see how flawed leftist thinking is:
It dawns on them that there’s something other than the self.
Leftists have the infantile perspective that all truth is generated in their own minds. This is why they accept postmodern ideas such as “all truth is relative” and “all morality is subjective.”
But when the individual realizes that external truth is separate and independent, and that it exists no matter what they do or think, this realization is like a gift. Something they never received from leftist ideas.
Solid ground to stand on.
You just proved didn’t have a real reason for your position until today, and then you ran to your liberal, do-gooder position of “its for the children”.
Again, you are not sticking to the debate at hand, you are spinning. This is such a favorite tactic of the left:
“I have made a fool of myself, so let me fling a bunch of nonsense out there. I make no sense, so the debate ends. Therefore I have won the debate and I am right.”
Remember—the truth shall set you free, my friend.
Hmm, there you go projecting again.
Think of it this way. If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is itself relative. This shows us the statement is logically incoherent.
When you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie. Lying is a kind of bondage, like being in prison.
You know what is really funny. You are the one that lied. You are the one that has a reading comprehension weakness.
What is even funnier when I can provide facts, you cannot. You argue from a corner of emotionalism. Not fact based, just what feels good.
Then when you can’t defend even that, you start spinning like a top with incoherent vomit.
Don’t forget, Saul Alinsky’s ideas were more stupid than anything else. And none of them were original.
He lost when he made lying his foundation.
“If a tree could fall on a power cable then the tree should never have been there to begin with.”
That would require eliminating nearly all trees in residential areas where I live. A 100 foot tree demands nearly 3/4 acre to be able to fall in any direction without hitting anything. We don’t have Douglas Fir or Redwood in South Carolina but we do have Pines and Oaks that are more than 100 feet tall, yellow Poplar can be over 150.
“This theory is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”
Actually yes and no. It made valid points. However, it did not make the point that man is part of the ecology and landscape. For billions of years many species have dominated at the expense and death of other species and soon to replaced by another species. It is just normal.
The author is a proponent of an environment before mans management of it. The non management of it has resulted in the recent disastrous fires. If man did not live in these areas it would be of no consequence. Man does live there.
In effect the insane environmentalists are saying man should leave or perish. Man is part of normal environmental change.
Case in point is the United Kingdom. Two thousand years ago it was virtually all conifer and hardwood forests. Its population was small and tribal. Today all good arable land is farmed with the exception of forests set aside as national trust parks. Today the UK supports a vibrant farming industry that feeds its large population. The entire Island was changed ecologically. The change was good as it supports the human race. The same can be said of all of Europe.
The hidden secret of the environmentalist is they want a return to primitive times with small populations of their elite and so called educated and wise overlords of the earth. That is what those at the top think. The youth that are radical environmentalist are but useful tools and totally disposable when hard reality bites them in the ass.
The top layer of the environmental movement is Marxist. They can never admit this but they are and know exactly what they are doing.
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.