Bigbrog

I have no problem with EV cars/trucks...love that there are options for people. But what is stupid is the way people push EV's as a way to save the environment and saying gas vehicles need to be banned...cracks me up.

Sorry..go read your posts to jross. How about Plasi's?? How about uncle whatever? You all are trying to impose beliefs on others...jross was merely trying to make a point that you aren't able to comprehend because you are hell bent on attacking religion. We get it because you think it's all made up...fine...believe what you want and leave others to believe what they want...easy enough right?? By the way that is my point...period...doesn't have any other meaning or motive!! Also, I refuse to fall into your game once again of twisting things people write to fit a narrative and then for you to try and preach to them like you have some moral high ground...all you have is an opinion just like everyone else. And I learned long ago that someone who throws out words like "bigot" and "racist" at the drop of the hat are probably more likely to be those things versus the people they accuse of being those things. Bottom line is I am a person that doesn't try to find the boogey man in every single thing or topic out there...most of the time I assume positive intent...people can call things whatever they want to call things...but it has to work both ways. I can't stand it when people do the very thing they claim to be against...you see it all the time in today's society..."I hate people being oppressed, but I am going to oppress people to fix it and make up for the unfortunate group that was originally oppressed." "I can't believe they want to call marriage a civil union, it marginalizes groups so let's marginalize the group that calls it marriage." Once again...call it whatever the heck you want to call it...done! Equality is making sure everyone has the same rights and access to those rights....which I agree with 1000000%

I guess that is how you look at it, and I disagree

It's discrimination when both have the same rights??? My take is calling them different is an attempt to be inclusive of all beliefs...religious and non-religious. Not everything has negative intent.

Funny how you called it a doozy when it is essentially the point of your last statement. BUUUTTT....it works both ways!! Why should others be imposing their beliefs on jross??

While I don't think what jross is saying is causing any sort of separatism/marginalizim, or any other 'ism, I can understand how someone else would feel that way. But ultimately I guess it isn't up to me to decide if it is called "marriage" or "civil unions"...zero impact on me. But I am also confused why it would be a big deal for jross to feel the way he does...it has zero impact on same sex marriage/civil union...they can call it whatever they want to call it and jross, and anyone else, can call it whatever the heck they want to call it for whatever reason they want to...fair? You know what I call it marriage/civil union...stupid! LOL Probably all has to do with why some get so upset when someone has faith and base some of their beliefs off of that faith...who the heck cares?? It's funny to preach equality, diversity of thought, marginalization of groups, etc. then turn around and try and do the exact same thing to someone who has religious beliefs. SMH

My overall point was this...instead of inferring I mean something based on what I wrote, more people should say "Did you mean xyz when you posted that?" I am guilty of not asking that question, but I try really hard to ask that question. But it is also hard to have a conversation with someone who constantly does that. I am a person who loves to have a conversation about everything, especially when I believe differently than someone else, but I can't stand people that get overly emotional about things (including using one off over-emotional examples to try and make a point), are completely closed minded, or aren't willing to truly understand the other person's opinion. Some of my best friends and I have the best conversations when we disagree, but in the end, we always still love each other. Heck there are people on these boards who I disagree with a lot but would love to hang out with and would probably get along with great (ex. Bob, Plasi, etc.). But of course, there are people on here who are complete wackadoodles that I am not sure I would, but man it would be cool to meet them to see if their internet persononna matches the real person...lol You seem decent enough dude as you are good at not jumping to the name calling. Just hoping you'd ask me if I meant something before just assuming I do. I am self admittedly not the best writer in the world.

Post of the week!!

What I mean is that a parent should have knowledge of what their child is learning...there are things that the education institutions do have expertise in in terms of the core subjects and what and when in regard to those; however, I also believe parents, through the proper channels should have a say/opinion in what those core subjects are...in terms of generalities. As for sexual education and gender topics, this is something I believe parents should have a lot of say in. Do I say that because of religious beliefs...no. Do I say that because I don't believe in alternative lifestyles and those who want to identify as something other than their assigned sex at birth...no. I say that in it is an extremely important topic and I want to know what my kid is being taught and I also should have a say in what I think is "graphic" in nature in terms of those topics. I am not sure how this somehow gets twisted into this "isn't my lane" and "leave it to the experts" b.s.?? That is the point I was trying to make. The sentence about having an opinion about kids is only allowed when you have kids as a sarcastic response to dumb dumb ban's post about not being able to have an opinion about education if you aren't a teacher. I'm done responding directly to the idiot.

LOL...well let's let Ban decide since he thinks he is the one that determines who get's an opinion on topics. In all seriousness...nice!! Bet your family gatherings are amazing?? And I believe if you have kids then you are MORE than qualified to have an opinion about how and what they are taught in schools. Juat because someone is educated in education and is a teacher doesn't mean they are the all knower's of everything kid. They know how to teach the core subjects to students, not that they are experts in every aspect of kids and every subject matter a kid should learn about as they grow up.

Anyone know about this Dean Phillips that is going to run against Biden for the D nomination?

Those of you on here that do not have kids do not get to have an opinion on things that impact kids.

More than happy to have a conversation about this when you can realize you are not all knowing, and when you stop inferring things about me and what my believes are so I fit a narrative you are making up in your head. If you disagree with what I specifically said in a post, without extrapolating that to mean something other than what it says, then please do so, otherwise don't waste your time responding.

Again...is the government way of distributing money to those in need the only way to do it, because that is today's society, and I should go live in the woods because I disagree? But then turn around and say it isn't working...so which is it??

So the government system is or isn't working??? But overall I agree with what you are saying. Because I am the way I am, and it has NOTHING to do with not wanting to help those in need, I'd love to dig into more of the data that indicates 1 out of 10 Americans is either hungry or malnourished.

Because you live in our society. You drink our water, eat our food, use our roads, etc... If you don't want to chip in, go live in the woods by yourself.

Again I agree with the second half...and my personal choice would be to give money to organizations that align with what my ideas of a person of need is (more than likely what my ideas are would not be too far off from the vast majority of people)...I also would NOT take into consideration any of the things you say, but along those lines who are you or anyone else in the place to choose for me?

Who said anyone's feelings are hurt?? Boy some of you sure like to play psychics on here. I think you are missing a major point, I am not advocating for ANY bureaucratic hurdles...I am advocating for individual choice on how and how much money is spent. And I'll throw out this caveat...I am NOT talking about disaster relief...that is a WHOLE other topic. I am talking about individual people who need help. There are plenty of PRIVATE charity organizations that do it 10 times better than the government. And those who donate get to see how the money is spent and to whom. And if you choose to give to people no matter what...FINE...than you give to organizations that do that...problem solved!

You were doing so well with this paragraph until the parentheses. That is the problem right there...blaming one side or the other. Bottom line is both sides do need to work together but the attitude of "If they would just do it my way" never works...then division is caused. And both sides blame the other for starting it first.

BS...that is an emotional talking point based on political ideology and you know it.

My opinion for that statement is because most of the personal charity requires more than just a hand reaching out. The government doesn't require anything but the hand; thus, it is easy to make that assertation.

Agreed...except the divide happens when the government uses a broad stroke in terms of who needs what and how much...i.e., some people and the current administration support those who are in need no matter WHY they are in need. I don't agree with that. Again, I am all for helping the community and my fellow man/person/human, but I'd prefer to have control over that help. I live by the saying, before you get help, you have to do something to help yourself first. And no I won't entertain the discussion of the one off extreme-emotional examples some of you are going to inevitably throw out there.

I agree with this...there are people who feel it is the governments job to determine how people's money is spent to help those in need, and there are people, like me, who want to be able to choose how and where my money is spent in helping out those in need. To me the "why" people get mad over these types of differences is because one is mandated and the other is based on choice. I am all for helping others less fortunate, but it should be my choice who and when and how much, not the government, and definitely not some of you on these forums.

Despite the stupid first sentence I see what you are saying. But the last sentence could be used in the opposite direction as well. I do feel that the majority of teachers are in a terrible position in regards to their role in today's society...they are damned if the do and they are damned if they don't. No matter what, they get "attacked" by "one side or the other". My opinion of what the root cause of this problem is is that most of their administrations are terrible (at least in my little circle and based on what I hear from friends and family across the country and read about)! And I think they get that way because they are "political" roles in that they are voted on. Thus, like all politicians, their motivation may differ than what is the motivation of parents and teachers and teaching our kids core subjects. Not to mention teachers get abused by kids and are not able to discipline in any sort of way these days.

VERY rarely do I feel threads should be locked or deleted, but actually agree...please @BobDole