Thousands gather for peaceful candlelight vigil at UVA

[CaptainCourtesy]

Number one, the old Nazis were not right wing, that's propaganda that has been sold to the public for years. Do you think I have never read this before?

And you're shooting the messenger, not arguing against the message.

Of course the old Nazis were right wing. I've been reading the ridiculous right wing propaganda for years making the historical revisonistic claim that it's not. It's been silly and incorrect all that time and it still is.

And I'm doing both. The message itself has always been a lie and the messenger is not a trustworthy source of which to impart such a message.

1984 was fiction, but totalitarianism isn't. You have seen what happened in Venezuela, in just a few short years. And by the way, in 1984 it was big government who wanted the books banned/burned. The kind of big government the left advocates. If left to the citizens themselves, they will not ban books, or take down statues.

Orwell's Newspeak is so close to political correctness it's scary. And who gave us political correctness? It wasn't the right, we'd just as soon call things by their names.

Totalitarianism, like Nazism, is a right wing ideology. It sometimes forms from a left wing ideology such as Communism, but it's essence is right wing. Controlling morals, removing resistance, historical revisionism. banning books and silencing free speech. back in the McCarthy era, it was right wingers who especially championed the last two, not lefties. And Newspeak isn't political correctness. It's control. It doesn't deem what language is good or bad; it completely alters language in and of itself to make it impossible to even express certain ideas. That's totalitarianism, a right wing ideology.

Nor should it be ignored or forgotten.

Didn't say it should.

Hey, I'm the one who advocated a solution by and for the citizens, you want a big government solution. That's a left wing position, big government, the same big government that burned the books in years past, not a handful of guys with swastika flags on a street corner.

Actually, the people who burned books with swastika flags were right wingers... just like the right wingers from the McCarthy era who did the same thing. And I do not support mob rule. If the citizens of a town want to ban all blacks from voting, it is not a decision that they can make. Similar in this case.

Hate to disagree with you here but I have to.

You can disagree. Doesn't mean you're right, though.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Saying that each side is equally responsible for the violence is not making an argument for moral equivalence but if you believe it is, that's fine. Then they are morally equivalent. I have no problem with that. Violent extremists are violent extremists. Both sides showed up itching for a fight and both sides are equally responsible for a fight breaking out. Call it what you like, but that is just a fact.

Situationally, both sides were at fault. Morally, there is little equivelence between the two sides. One side, the white supremacists, support things like segregation, genocide, and racism, where the other doesn't.

And no, the Nazis don't seek liberty, they would overthrow our form of government and put in its place a fascist dictatorship that would trample the rights of everyone. They support rights for them, not rights for all. Fascism demands an all powerful state. That hardly right leaning ideology. Fascism is right on the socialist scale with communism being on the left. Neither exist on the American capitalist scale. So no, I have no reason to disown such an ideology since I never owned it in the first place.

Fascism has nothing to do with socialism. It is anti-socialism, as described by the founder of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini. Fascism is not socialistic, as socialism is defined by a collective and democratic ownership, the antithesis of fascism. Fascism is an extreme version of an oligarchy. But we are talking about neo-nazis, nazis of today. As I explained, their positions on things are certainly in line with right wing positions.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Those aren't the topic, here. Right?

They are now since you presented a position... and I have presented a counter position. Do you want to respond or not?

 

[it's just me]

Of course the old Nazis were right wing. I've been reading the ridiculous right wing propaganda for years making the historical revisonistic claim that it's not. It's been silly and incorrect all that time and it still is.

And I'm doing both. The message itself has always been a lie and the messenger is not a trustworthy source of which to impart such a message.



Totalitarianism, like Nazism, is a right wing ideology. It sometimes forms from a left wing ideology such as Communism, but it's essence is right wing. Controlling morals, removing resistance, historical revisionism. banning books and silencing free speech. back in the McCarthy era, it was right wingers who especially championed the last two, not lefties. And Newspeak isn't political correctness. It's control. It doesn't deem what language is good or bad; it completely alters language in and of itself to make it impossible to even express certain ideas. That's totalitarianism, a right wing ideology.


Didn't say it should.



Actually, the people who burned books with swastika flags were right wingers... just like the right wingers from the McCarthy era who did the same thing. And I do not support mob rule. If the citizens of a town want to ban all blacks from voting, it is not a decision that they can make. Similar in this case.



You can disagree. Doesn't mean you're right, though.

This guy explains it better than I can:

Let me start by defining some terms. What is a conservative? Politically speaking a conservative is, not surprisingly, someone who wishes to conserve, to save, something. Not to put too fine a point on it, that something that we wish to conserve is freedom, our individual liberty. That means that conservatives try to rein in or restrain government (for as government grows freedom shrinks).

Opposed to the conservative viewpoint is the, well, it goes under a variety of names…I’ll simply call it the liberal/progressive/globalist/communist/socialist/statist, or fascist viewpoint—which is in favor of a huge, bloated, bureaucratic government that controls every aspect of our lives, to one degree or another. The bigger and more controlling the government the better to the leftist mind (a hive mind; group-think marionettes marching in lockstep, excepting the puppet-masters of course).

All of the various ideologies I mention in the paragraph above are variations on a theme—that theme being Big Government. Although there are differences between them all, they have much more in common with each other than with any pro-capitalist, pro-freedom conservative ideology. For example, communism has much more in common with fascism than either has with conservatism.

Now might be a good time to bring up the question: what is fascism exactly? The Left would have us believe that either (1) fascism is a right-wing ideology, or (2) the answer is so muddled, arcane, obscure, and convoluted that no simple answer is possible. Both of the “answers” that the Left tries to palm off on us are nonsense. They are lies, big lies.

Fascism is a Big Government ideology, and as such belongs firmly on the left side of the political spectrum (on the side opposite from the restrained and reined in government, right-wing side of things).

http://canadafreepress.com/article/outing-left-wing-fascists-nazis

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This guy explains it better than I can:



Outing Left Wing Fascists-Nazis

That guy, too, is wrong. I explained it far better and far more accurately in my last few posts than he. Just another conservative redacting what fascism actually means, trying to falsely present it as left wing ideology. Fascism opposes left wing ideology. Fascism is oligarchical in nature. Liberalism/progressivism/socialism completely opposes power being in the hands of the few. Conservatism professes liberty... as long as that liberty adheres to conservative ideals. That's the great lie of conservative liberty. And those ideals are dictated down, from the top. Oligarchical. Hence much closer to fascism than anything the left has to offer.

 

[it's just me]

That guy, too, is wrong. I explained it far better and far more accurately in my last few posts than he. Just another conservative redacting what fascism actually means, trying to falsely present it as left wing ideology. Fascism opposes left wing ideology. Fascism is oligarchical in nature. Liberalism/progressivism/socialism completely opposes power being in the hands of the few. Conservatism professes liberty... as long as that liberty adheres to conservative ideals. That's the great lie of conservative liberty. And those ideals are dictated down, from the top. Oligarchical. Hence much closer to fascism than anything the left has to offer.

To the bolded: maybe it did at one time, what I used to refer to as "classical liberalism". A lot of conservatives are in reality classical liberals, or what today is known as "libertarian". The Russian revolution claimed to oppose power being in the hands of a few, only to end up with power being in, well, the hands of a few. The same state of affairs would exist here if leftism/modern liberalism were to take over - you'd have a totalitarian state telling you what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can drive (or whether you can drive at all) what you can say and what you can think. On this very site I see people being shouted down regularly for saying "the wrong things", and the people doing the shouting are convinced of their own infallibility.

Now put the power of government behind that.

 

[Fletch]

Situationally, both sides were at fault. Morally, there is little equivelence between the two sides. One side, the white supremacists, support things like segregation, genocide, and racism, where the other doesn't.

Agreed. Which is why those claiming he made a 'moral' link between the two are incorrect. He did not say the two sides were morally equivalent, he made the situational argument that both sides were responsible for the violence. He is being castigated for stating the obvious.

Fascism has nothing to do with socialism. It is anti-socialism, as described by the founder of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini. Fascism is not socialistic, as socialism is defined by a collective and democratic ownership, the antithesis of fascism. Fascism is an extreme version of an oligarchy. But we are talking about neo-nazis, nazis of today. .

Fascism is ant-communism, not anti-socialism. The Nazis were also anti-capitalist but they recognized the usefulness of leaving ownership of the means of production in the hands of individuals. That ownership was merely nominal since private business had to do whatever the Fuhrer wanted them to do. So there was state control over business, but more importantly, fascism is the product of the same collectivist thinking as socialism and communism. It relies upon the supremacy of the state over the individual. Once you accept that premise, you get what you get be it fascism, communism. socialism or just your garden variety despotism. It really makes no difference from the perspective of those seeking freedom.

As I explained, their positions on things are certainly in line with right wing positions

There are positions of yours that neo-communists would support but that doesn't make you a communist, nor does it require you to apologize for the actions of communists. The point here isn't that there are certain elements of an ideology that align with the fringe, it is that the fundamental principles don't align. Liberty, limited government and free markets are the fundamental principles of the right in America. The farther right you go, the greater the adherence to those principles. That Nazis agree on gun rights is evidence only that they want guns, not that they accept the principles behind the idea. They don't. The violent factions that fought each other in Charlottesville represent neither the right nor the left in America. Each side is USING the right and the left to get what they want, but these radicals will jettison party politics should they achieve their goals. If either of those two warring factions were to ever gain power in this country, you and I would both be cell mates in the Gulag. That is the moral equivalence argument. And that is not the argument Trump made.

 

[yankintx]

I am at the Boston rally wearing my Proud to be a Gay Vet T- Shirt. Literally thousands have turned out to promote equality and tolerance, Boston proud!! We want the rest of America to k know that the rascist are not the face of this city or State.

 

[jimbo]

So, one person gets violent verses thousands who don't. What do you think that shows?

That it's easy to pick and choose your battle?

There's plenty of violent incidents from the left. Cops killed in Texas. Businesses burned in Ferguson and Baltimore. People marching illegally calling for dead cops. Public property being destroyed.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

To the bolded: maybe it did at one time, what I used to refer to as "classical liberalism". A lot of conservatives are in reality classical liberals, or what today is known as "libertarian". The Russian revolution claimed to oppose power being in the hands of a few, only to end up with power being in, well, the hands of a few. The same state of affairs would exist here if leftism/modern liberalism were to take over - you'd have a totalitarian state telling you what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can drive (or whether you can drive at all) what you can say and what you can think. On this very site I see people being shouted down regularly for saying "the wrong things", and the people doing the shouting are convinced of their own infallibility.

Now put the power of government behind that.

These are just right wing talking points. The Russian Revolution demonstrated what I've always said: it is impossible for a socialist or communist state to exist on a large scale without immediately turning into a totalitarian state. The USSR wasn't communist in essence. It was a totalitarian oligarchy. That's far closer to what right wingers want... who you can marry, what bathroom you can use, what you can do to your body, etc... On this very site I see plenty of right wingers trying to dictate that their own morality should be the law of the land. That's what many right wingers do. With left wingers it's not about morality, per se, but about the perception of equality. Both are wrong, but both are quite different.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Agreed. Which is why those claiming he made a 'moral' link between the two are incorrect. He did not say the two sides were morally equivalent, he made the situational argument that both sides were responsible for the violence. He is being castigated for stating the obvious.

He is being castigated for not stating the obvious.

Fascism is ant-communism, not anti-socialism. The Nazis were also anti-capitalist but they recognized the usefulness of leaving ownership of the means of production in the hands of individuals. That ownership was merely nominal since private business had to do whatever the Fuhrer wanted them to do. So there was state control over business, but more importantly, fascism is the product of the same collectivist thinking as socialism and communism. It relies upon the supremacy of the state over the individual. Once you accept that premise, you get what you get be it fascism, communism. socialism or just your garden variety despotism. It really makes no difference from the perspective of those seeking freedom.

No, fascism is decidedly anti-socialism. With socialism, ownership is not merely nominal, it is actual. Fascism is an extreme form of oligarchy which is the antithesis of what socialism is about. Fascism isn't about collectivist thinking at all. It's about power and control of the few, which again, is the antithesis of collectivist thinking. It relies on the supremacy of the few over the many. The state is a figurehead for that. Once you understand that, you know why fascism is nothing like communism or socialism.

There are positions of yours that neo-communists would support but that doesn't make you a communist, nor does it require you to apologize for the actions of communists. The point here isn't that there are certain elements of an ideology that align with the fringe, it is that the fundamental principles don't align. Liberty, limited government and free markets are the fundamental principles of the right in America. The farther right you go, the greater the adherence to those principles. That Nazis agree on gun rights is evidence only that they want guns, not that they accept the principles behind the idea. They don't. The violent factions that fought each other in Charlottesville represent neither the right nor the left in America. Each side is USING the right and the left to get what they want, but these radicals will jettison party politics should they achieve their goals. If either of those two warring factions were to ever gain power in this country, you and I would both be cell mates in the Gulag. That is the moral equivalence argument. And that is not the argument Trump made.

OK. This I can pretty much agree with.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That it's easy to pick and choose your battle?

There's plenty of violent incidents from the left. Cops killed in Texas. Businesses burned in Ferguson and Baltimore. People marching illegally calling for dead cops. Public property being destroyed.

All of your examples are not examples of the left. They are examples of people doing things who either happen to be on the left or who represent the extreme left. Do you want to be associated with extreme right wingers who do stupid and violent things?

 

[Oborosen]

All of your examples are not examples of the left. They are examples of people doing things who either happen to be on the left or who represent the extreme left. Do you want to be associated with extreme right wingers who do stupid and violent things?

I do think its becoming harder to tell between the two distinctions, also we must take into account the movement leeches that follow the Antifa groups around. Just so they can cause havoc for havocs sake.

We can safely place those that use physical discourse in place of actual debate, as the extreme-left. Because I myself know more then a few people who fit squarely within the lefts boundaries. Who are factual, and choose healthy debate over any other alternative. Though I would like to suggest that the alt-left be known as the people who are willing to twist and subvert your argument, to label you one of the known hate groups number, or a defender of such. Or just basically those that are willing to lie outright to get their way, without getting physical.

Because we have seen no evidence that either two are able to deal with the truth.

I'm open to suggestions here.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I do think its becoming harder to tell between the two distinctions, also we must take into account the movement leeches that follow the Antifa groups around. Just so they can cause havoc for havocs sake.

We can safely place those that use physical discourse in place of actual debate, as the extreme-left. Because I myself know more then a few people who fit squarely within the lefts boundaries. Who are factual, and choose healthy debate over any other alternative. Though I would like to suggest that the alt-left be known as the people who are willing to twist and subvert your argument, to label you one of the known hate groups number, or a defender of such. Or just basically those that are willing to lie outright to get their way, without getting physical.

Because we have seen no evidence that either two are able to deal with the truth.

I'm open to suggestions here.

What I'd like to see is people on both sides making general statements about the other based on the behavior of the extremists of each side. I label the people who do that as extremists or hacks and they should be ignored as having no credibility. What I'd like to see is these people either stop doing that or people on their respective sides to confront them.

 

[Oborosen]

What I'd like to see is people on both sides making general statements about the other based on the behavior of the extremists of each side. I label the people who do that as extremists or hacks and they should be ignored as having no credibility. What I'd like to see is these people either stop doing that or people on their respective sides to confront them.

That would be nice, though any form of confrontation in the recent months, no matter how slight. Has not turned out good for either side.

Maybe if they can get two representatives together a piece, and have a nice get together televised?

It would at least be a start in some case.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That would be nice, though any form of confrontation in the recent months, no matter how slight. Has not turned out good for either side.

Maybe if they can get two representatives together a piece, and have a nice get together televised?

It would at least be a start in some case.

You misunderstand. What I'd like to see is your average right winger confront the extremist right winger on their behavior... and the same thing for left wingers. My theory has always been that it takes the more sane members of one's own ideology to effectively squash the extremists of that same ideology.

 

[it's just me]

These are just right wing talking points. The Russian Revolution demonstrated what I've always said: it is impossible for a socialist or communist state to exist on a large scale without immediately turning into a totalitarian state. The USSR wasn't communist in essence. It was a totalitarian oligarchy. That's far closer to what right wingers want... who you can marry, what bathroom you can use, what you can do to your body, etc... On this very site I see plenty of right wingers trying to dictate that their own morality should be the law of the land. That's what many right wingers do. With left wingers it's not about morality, per se, but about the perception of equality. Both are wrong, but both are quite different.

Right wing talking points indeed. You need look no farther than New York City, where you can't buy a soda over 16 ounces, where there is no salt on the dining tables, you can't smoke a cigarette or a cigar. But wait, you say, "I can do what I want with my body!" Not if you smoke. You can't even smoke in your own car in California if there's a minor in the car. I wonder if it matters whether the minor is smoking? There are tons of people who want marijuana legalized (mostly on the left) but want cigarettes outlawed. And now they are coming after vaping because it's obvious that some people enjoy it so it has to be stopped. These are actual laws (except for the vaping), not some wish list made up by a Church Lady.

When I went to vote this last time I was accosted by some sniveler who demanded to know if I had a permit for the Buck knife (legal in my state) I had on my belt.

So don't even bother trying to tell me about "right wingers" dictating to the rest of you, I am old enough to remember when even California was a free state.

 

[Moot]

That it's easy to pick and choose your battle?

There's plenty of violent incidents from the left. Cops killed in Texas. Businesses burned in Ferguson and Baltimore. People marching illegally calling for dead cops. Public property being destroyed.

Mass murder at Charleston church. Attempted bombing in Oklahoma. Mass murder at a Layfette theater. Stabbings in Portland. Running over protesters in Charlottesville.

 

[Oborosen]

You misunderstand. What I'd like to see is your average right winger confront the extremist right winger on their behavior... and the same thing for left wingers. My theory has always been that it takes the more sane members of one's own ideology to effectively squash the extremists of that same ideology.

I do know that is what you meant, but we have still seen the people who are on the same political side of the debate pretty much eat each other over the last few months as well.

Leftist bashing their leftist friends for not sticking with the herd, and Rightist doing the exact same.

One example would be people on the left or right who defend the white nationalist free speech at Charlottesville, but getting bashed by their own sides for not outright demonizing them for their views.

I think its just a dog eat dog world at the moment.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Right wing talking points indeed. You need look no farther than New York City, where you can't buy a soda over 16 ounces, where there is no salt on the dining tables, you can't smoke a cigarette or a cigar. But wait, you say, "I can do what I want with my body!" Not if you smoke. You can't even smoke in your own car in California if there's a minor in the car. I wonder if it matters whether the minor is smoking? There are tons of people who want marijuana legalized (mostly on the left) but want cigarettes outlawed. And now they are coming after vaping because it's obvious that some people enjoy it so it has to be stopped. These are actual laws (except for the vaping), not some wish list made up by a Church Lady.

When I went to vote this last time I was accosted by some sniveler who demanded to know if I had a permit for the Buck knife (legal in my state) I had on my belt.

So don't even bother trying to tell me about "right wingers" dictating to the rest of you, I am old enough to remember when even California was a free state.

All you did was highlight what I said. Left winger want laws that prevent people from doing things that negatively affect others. Everything you mention deals with those things, from healthcare costs, to second hand smoke. Right wingers want to prevent people from doing things that they find offensive, often morally. SSM, transsexual rights, abortion, and to some extent, desegregation. These are their own personal issues which they then want to dictate that others also need to follow. So, yes, right wingers certainly try to dictate their own morality onto others. And fortunately, I've been around long enough to see a lot of that changing... with right wingers going kicking and screaming.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I do know that is what you meant, but we have still seen the people who are on the same political side of the debate pretty much eat each other over the last few months as well.

Leftist bashing their leftist friends for not sticking with the herd, and Rightist doing the exact same.

One example would be people on the left or right who defend the white nationalist free speech at Charlottesville, but getting bashed by their own sides for not outright demonizing them for their views.

I think its just a dog eat dog world at the moment.

Yeah, good point.

 

[it's just me]

All you did was highlight what I said. Left winger want laws that prevent people from doing things that negatively affect others. Everything you mention deals with those things, from healthcare costs, to second hand smoke. Right wingers want to prevent people from doing things that they find offensive, often morally. SSM, transsexual rights, abortion, and to some extent, desegregation. These are their own personal issues which they then want to dictate that others also need to follow. So, yes, right wingers certainly try to dictate their own morality onto others. And fortunately, I've been around long enough to see a lot of that changing... with right wingers going kicking and screaming.

Yeah, me putting salt on my food and buying a drink larger than 16 ounces affects some leftwinger somewhere. That's always the excuse, you are raising my healthcare costs! Nope, they are like militant vegetarians, they don't eat meat and they don't want you to eat meat either, because it raises their healthcare costs. Smoking outside causes problems for people standing 100 yards away.

No, I don't think your characterization of "right wingers" is accurate. Politically, I'm a libertarian. If you want to abort your own bloodline out of existence, it's no skin off my nose. If you want to cut your junk off and claim you're a girl, knock yourself completely and directly out, just don't ask me to pay for it.

Ah, there's that healthcare cost thing again.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Yeah, me putting salt on my food and buying a drink larger than 16 ounces affects some leftwinger somewhere. That's always the excuse, you are raising my healthcare costs! Nope, they are like militant vegetarians, they don't eat meat and they don't want you to eat meat either, because it raises their healthcare costs. Smoking outside causes problems for people standing 100 yards away.

No, I don't think your characterization of "right wingers" is accurate. Politically, I'm a libertarian. If you want to abort your own bloodline out of existence, it's no skin off my nose. If you want to cut your junk off and claim you're a girl, knock yourself completely and directly out, just don't ask me to pay for it.

Ah, there's that healthcare cost thing again.

And I don't see your characterization of left wingers as accurate. We are not talking about one person, here, we are talking about a large amount of people and the impact that has. Right wingers are so focused on themselves they always miss the point that behavior does not exist in a vacuum. And just because you don't care about those things, doesn't mean that right wingers in general don't. Who are the folks that try to make their own personal morality, law? Right wingers.

 

[notquiteright]

It shows that there is a segment of the left that is violent and gets a pass, largely because the left views their own anger as righteous. Violence against Nazis, for example, is just and to be applauded. Even though those Nazis have the same rights as you and I.

Well so do child molesters, however I don't see many folks demanding the molesters not be harmed, far to the contrary, many demand all manner of torture for them.

Few Conservatives and those who now demand police action against violence had much sympathy for those against Trump standing up at his rallies (nor demand the Trumpers who hit the protesters be arrested on the spot and hauled off like the protester.)

Perhaps a less partisan opinion is there are violent folks in society, well wishers for such violence, agitators of all stripes, and whiners even among the most ardent posters.... eace

 

[Peter King]

Yeah, me putting salt on my food and buying a drink larger than 16 ounces affects some leftwinger somewhere. That's always the excuse, you are raising my healthcare costs! Nope, they are like militant vegetarians, they don't eat meat and they don't want you to eat meat either, because it raises their healthcare costs. Smoking outside causes problems for people standing 100 yards away.

No, I don't think your characterization of "right wingers" is accurate. Politically, I'm a libertarian. If you want to abort your own bloodline out of existence, it's no skin off my nose. If you want to cut your junk off and claim you're a girl, knock yourself completely and directly out, just don't ask me to pay for it.

Ah, there's that healthcare cost thing again.

You are wrong, they are not complaining about these things because it affects them, they do it because it affects all of us (which technically includes them but is not limited to just them).

And that is because you do not live in a vacuum. In the past everybody cooked at home and all the salt people got in their diet was the salt they put on themselves/put in themselves. Today people use convenience food all the time, which has added salts already and in not too low levels. And that is because most people do not buy it if it does not taste like it has enough salt. People have been getting used to all that food with added salt that people need more all the time to just have the same taste experience.

The same goes with sugar, having 16 ounces is fine if you are not really someone who has weight issues or who uses diet drinks, but this again is monkey see monkey do. People who would do better not to have 16 ounce cups also want them, a lot of them, which does cause health problems for them and issues for everybody else (and I should know, I am morbidly obese). People have been getting so used to huge people, nobody really pays that much attention to them or to their own offspring getting "fuller figured" themselves. And it is an epidemic out there.

And that epidemic from your 16 ounces of sugary drinks combined with the excess of meat eaters cause more environmental issues for everybody. Beef/meat is a "dirty" business. It needs huge fields with crops to feed the beef/meat animals with crops that if used by humans would cause a lot more product to be grown to combat hunger. Also, meat producing is not a thing that is not environmentally sound, they eat a lot and they poop a lot, they urinate a lot. Valuable water resources have to be used to grow the food the animals get to eat and to water the animals themselves. And in a period where water is in short supply, being a part time vegetarian would not be the end of the world.

And that is what (too aggressively I know) the vegetarians are trying to tell us. Meat is not only murder (which I have no problem with) according to them, it is also bad for the environment and bad for humanity. Even not eating meat once a week would help the environment a lot according to some data.

They do not do this to anger or inconvenience you, they do it because they care for the planet, themselves and everybody else too.

And their actions are not bad for the healthcare costs either, fewer fat in the diet through no longer over consumption of meat, not engorging on food to the level we are doing now and choosing to live healthier will not only save money but save lives too. Which they do not do for themselves but also a lot of you and me.

And I do agree with CaptainCourtesy when it comes to right wingers, they do not embrace change willingly, hell they do it kicking and screaming and often with their hands and feet digging into the ground, because they often hate progress. It is not for nothing that they are being called conservatives.