uncle bernard

as I’ve said several times, the people saying there are no innocent civilians in Gaza echo the evil words of Bin Laden after 9/11. It’s an evil worldview.

The obvious solution to this is if you don’t want to see “sexualized” behavior at a Pride parade, don’t go to a Pride parade. Have you ever even been to one? Or do you just see conservative pundits complaining about them on the internet?

You can ask people to suppress their identities to make you comfortable as long as you are willing to do the same for them. No displays or talking of religion or conservative politics in public. That’s the golden rule. You follow that to its conclusion, it means no expressing anything at all in public lest you might offend someone. The rational application of the golden rule to the public square is if you don’t want people to judge how you live, don’t judge them. move on. seeing gay people on tv isn’t going to kill you.

"I'm Mr. Personal Responsibility. It's the most important thing in the whole world. Also, the public square should be tailored to my beliefs so I never have to see anything I don't support."

Should Christians be expected to hide their cross necklaces and bible verse t-shirts to avoid offending non-believers? Should Trump supporters take off their MAGA hats to avoid offending democrats? Or maybe we can all be adults and understand we live in a free country with people who live life differently than us and they have every right to do so. Also, not sure what kind of media you're consuming, but I've never experienced public nudity from gay people. If there is an event somewhere where that's the expectation, maybe it's the parents' personal responsibility to not bring their kids? As for sexual innuendo, this is what fast food commercials used to be like. Our culture is far less sexual than it used to be.

Yeah, that's why they might choose an abortion. Btw 60% of women who get abortions in this country already have a child. They aren't foregoing having children. They can't afford to support the larger family. Nearly half are married or live with their partner. Lots of people choose the nuclear family *and* abortion.

So you want the government to enforce limitations on free speech in the public square? Is that not "Big Government?" No. Why would it? Just from a household income standpoint, that makes raising a child much, much easier. You complain about Big Government, yet want them to stop people from expressing themselves in public because it makes you uncomfortable. You complain about the downturn in the nuclear family, but I think you'd call any sort of public aid program that incentivizes children and makes them easier to raise "Big Government." The word I'd use to sum up your belief system is "ENTITLED." You literally want a safe space from views and lifestyles you don't agree with. Where does your "personal responsibility" to ignore what you don't like and move on show up?

Sounds like the Israeli's should stop giving him what he wants then. Welcome aboard to Team Ceasefire, scout!

Can't believe I forgot the last line! "force fed cultural support for abortion" Translation: most of the country disagrees with you and it makes you uncomfortable. The culture has no responsibility to cater to your minority views. Last time I checked, conservatives aren't being forced to have abortions. That's all they're owed by our free society. How can you preach "personal accountability" and complain when everybody else doesn't censor their views to protect your feelings?

If you ignore all the examples to the contrary, sure.

1. The number 1 threat to my job would be from conservatives for my pro-palestine views, so yes. They have very publicly been going after peoples' jobs or students' futures for this. Conservatives have also been working hard to get teachers fired for "promoting" woke ideology. 2. I'm sorry crimes were committed against you. Crime will always exist. It's far, far lower than it was in 70s-90s. 3. Where are you getting those numbers? I don't watch network TV, so I can't speak to current shows, but I do know Modern Family was huge and that featured 3 nuclear families. I feel like sitcoms are out of style in general. Most shows are focused around Doctors or Cops these days I think. 4. So your guy is the twice-divorced billionaire who cheats on his wife with pornstars? Is that supposed to promote the nuclear family? As opposed to the faithful catholic guy with 4 children and 7 grandchildren? You're gonna have to explain that one to me.

Huh, I guess not? Will you re-evaluate the preconceptions that led you to this prediction? I doubt it lol.

You can do the research and post that if you want. I don't have time. As long as you apply those same questions to Trump's term. How many of his jobs were a result of Obama's policies? I'd pick the Dems. The trickle down stuff doesn't work. I don't really care if the government "grows" if the growth is in service of good policy.

1. There's plenty of conservative cancel culture too. That's not a one-sided issue. 2. Crime is extremely low. That's a perception issue based on over-consumption of 24 hours news. 3. What does this mean? Vibes? Biden oversaw the expansion of the Child Tax Credit which gave more support to nuclear families and was one of the most successful reductions in child poverty in history. That expansion lapsed because the republicans (and some democrats) didn't renew it. Biden's pledged to renew it again. That's significant public support for the nuclear family, is it not?

It's also possible that inflation was a necessary evil that saved the economy. Without the checks and business loans, maybe the whole bottom falls out and we're in an even worse spot now?

So, it's mostly just "vibes" then? Trump's impact according to you: 1. A good slogan that made (some) people feel good 2. Obama added jobs both terms. Biden's added jobs in this term. Trump lost jobs in his. Those are empirical facts, though there is important context to be considered. Obama and Biden took over in the midst of recessions. It's easier to add jobs during a recovery. Trump's numbers are impacted by Covid. How much job loss was due to his decisions vs. how much was inevitable, it's hard to say. Pre-covid, his job creation continued at about the same rate as Obama's the previous term. 3. Perfectly reasonable reason for you to support him, but most of the country did not support this. 4. This feels like mostly a rhetoric thing. He deported fewer people than Obama. Of course. I think people disagree on the degree of impact and whether they were good. I would argue that Trump's rhetoric on immigration fueled a lot xenophobic hate and made this country worse. I would also his political approach crystallized a very toxic polarization that had been worsening over the prior decades.

He did this - even though the accusations were mostly BS. He gave an entire speech at the Holocaust museum on it.

I thought you were Mr. Personal Accountability?

Just curious, what specific parts of your life were better under Trump? The obvious one for me is prices. Everything is expensive now, though it's (very) slowly receding. However, a portion of that inflation was caused by stuff Trump did that carried over to Biden, so it's hard to disentangle the blame. Plus, many of the economists who predicted the inflation issue under Biden think Trump's platform will actually exacerbate the issue. The combination of extreme tariffs - increases the price of imports which in turn allows domestic sellers to raise prices - and mass deportation - contraction of the labor pool in key industries which will lead to companies needing to offer higher wages to fill shortages and thus lead to more price increases. That doesn't even include his plan to extend his 2017 tax cuts which will add even more money into the economy and increase the deficit. Are there other issues where you feel your life is notably worse under Biden?

On a purely historical level, it’s so fascinating how Trump has changed the rules of the game. Pre-2016, a single one of these weird tangents could have ended a whole campaign. Trump has one every week and hardly anybody blinks an eye. It’s wild. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. The focus should always be on policy anyway.

But they know the civilians are present before they pull the trigger. You act like it's a tragic surprise they find out about after the strike. No, they know beforehand and decide to strike anyway. You might not call that "targeting" but they are still making the conscious choice to knowingly kill civilians. Also, I've rarely used the word "target" btw, just killed, which is an empirical fact. They may not be targeting civilians, but they are certainly killing them. Would you strike a house knowing civilians are present and will die? Is sacrificing Palestinian civilians to kill a potential Hamas militant a good decision? Very simple question.

The reason I kept insisting you "answer the question" is because none of you besides scout had the guts to actually write it directly. It's very clear that you think Israel has the right to kill civilians as long as they're being used as human shields by Hamas and that it bears none of the responsibility for their deaths. Writing that out makes it clear how barbaric that is so you write long paragraphs dancing around it instead of just acknowledging you think it's okay to kill human shields.

scout by 3pm on a monday

"glad the 4 hostages are safe" Sorry for being critical of Israel botching their operation and killing almost as many hostages as they saved.