Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Do Conservatives Hate The Environment?

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, May 7, 2020.

  1. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    8,438
    374
    388
    Apr 3, 2007
    You won't get any cooperation from the half of the population that you need cooperation from to save the environment, unless you stop insulting them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. dynogator

    dynogator GC Hall of Fame

    6,131
    375
    358
    Apr 9, 2007
    Did I insult anyone?
    That's what will get everyone on board to save the environment? If people stop insulting them?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Not you necessarily but in general, yes.

    Look at this board. Sides are dug in just because we are defensive. I absolutely think progress is hurt by the deep division and constant grenade throwing. It is human nature to dig in when you feel attacked.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,780
    355
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    How are half of the population being insulted? By telling them the truth?
     
  5. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Legend

    909
    252
    348
    May 22, 2015
    You can't be serious. Packing the court was originally the idea of FDR who tried to pack the court with more liberal judges by just expanding the court. Both sides play politics with their court nominations. I am strongly leaning to voting for Biden but the idea that dems are pure in their court appointments is laughable.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Gator515151

    Gator515151 GC Hall of Fame

    20,395
    579
    933
    Apr 4, 2007
    The truth would help. It is hard to believe any data when so much of it is compiled to reach pre determined results.
     
  7. GCNumber7

    GCNumber7 GC Hall of Fame

    4,766
    131
    358
    Apr 3, 2007
    Voting for judges is just an excuse to vote for the team. Period.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. gator10010

    gator10010 GC Hall of Fame

    1,600
    72
    268
    Aug 23, 2008
    Not as long as there is an environment to save. Other opportunities will surface.
     
  9. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    3,312
    826
    798
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    This was Yogi Berra brilliant if on purpose.
    :star::star::star::star::star:
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    4,874
    676
    438
    Apr 16, 2007
    Yes, that was something historically. FDR wanted to do that. In current times, I know I've seen some dems (i.e. Buttigeg in this campaign) suggest totally reforming the Supreme Court - not to "pack" it - but actually to remove it from political processes entirely. I don't really like his idea, don't even really want justices associated with "democrats" or "republicans" directly. Is this what we want? Just accepting political hack justices? He suggested expanding to 15 justices, with 5 "democrats", 5 "republicans", and then those 10 choose the last 5 independently. So in theory, that removes the political bias equation or idea of "packing" anything. Like I said, not a fan but it does address the "court packing" idea and pretty much nips it in the bud.

    I was referring more in my lifetime. The "McConnell strategy" of actually denying one parties candidates, dysfunction of the courts be damned, in the hope of creating vacancies to pack their preferred picks once they gain power. Pretty sure that has never been done. Maybe you can cite it and prove me wrong, but I don't recall it happening.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Kirby

    Kirby GC Legend

    602
    195
    423
    Sep 14, 2009
    Rocket City
    So what are all of the liberals on this site doing to save the environment? Have you stopped driving your car or flying? Are you using solar power to charge your device to put out this nonsense? Are you composting all of your waste? Have you stopped eating meat and are you growing all of your food without using fertilizer or pesticides? I guess sky screaming counts so I’ll give you credit for that.

    I’ll hang up and listen.....
     
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  12. dynogator

    dynogator GC Hall of Fame

    6,131
    375
    358
    Apr 9, 2007
    Wasn't it? Honestly, though, NOP.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    24,604
    2,233
    1,243
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Tell that to crooked RE developers. They demand it as a condition of engagement of services. I personally experienced it in the 3 decades in Central Florida, and it is rampant, documented proven fact. As an appraiser, if I accept an assignment contingent on arriving at a pre determined result, it is by definition a violation of Florida statute chapter 475. Fact. But try to tell that to someone who wants more money, wants people to tell them what they want to hear, not the truth, and could not care less who gets hurt. No shortage of those plux. MAGA baby!
     
  14. mutz87

    mutz87 #glassofwatergate VIP Member

    35,569
    2,949
    2,186
    Aug 30, 2014
    Maybe, but I had in mind that for years on here and outside here, the reactionaries among the right have been calling global warming a hoax and environmental issues irrelevant. Despite this, I still don't think they hate the environment but too many have lost any ability to reason logically in a way that isn't driven by anti-liberalism, anti-science, and/or paranoia.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  15. NavyGator93

    NavyGator93 GC Hall of Fame

    1,517
    610
    538
    Dec 4, 2015
    Georgia
    Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

    You don't have to stop flying or driving, but you can do it less. You don't have to stop eating meat (although I have) but you can eat a lot less. I compost and recycle, but not perfectly.

    I do this without being a liberal, I am just not an idiot and I realize we only have one planet, I would like my kids to enjoy it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    8,438
    374
    388
    Apr 3, 2007
    She was lumping everyone in the category in with the behaviors and attitudes of a few. That's what racists do, BTW. But I'm sure you think that liberals are above such horrible behavior.

    The smart thing to do would be to find common ground with the conservatives who agree with you, not mix them up with the conservatives who don't.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    6,642
    893
    613
    Sep 14, 2008
    FDR wasn't all that long ago and much of what he did influences modern politics and the judiciary. While he didn't win the ability to pack the court, he won the war as he was trying to get a friendly court to approve his New Deal measures. The roadblock was some old justices who ruled the programs unconstitutional because the federal government didn't have the explicit power to do them. Eventually some of those old justices agreed to retire as a result of the threat to the court and were replaced with FDR guys who insisted the constitution didn't mean what it said. The courts changed dramatically over the subsequent 3 decades and the conservative movement to focus on the courts largely was a backlash to what they thought was a system that was too liberal.

    But if you want "modern" examples I guess I would say this whole thing started with the Bork nomination. They publically tore him down and refused to confirm based largely on ideology. At the same time the religious right had been aligning with the GOP and calling for conservative justices, so they were pushing for conservatives and especially ones who disagree with abortion. Souter was a good example of the response to Bork because they chose him largely because he had a limited record that could be criticized and the confirmation turn into another Bork thing. Still, they were whining about someone they knew little about. NOW said Souter would "end freedom for women in this country" and the NAACP was organizing a letter writing campaign against him. Thomas's confirmation was a mess, but it turned into a political fight even before the Anita Hill thing. The left was insisting that Bush replace Thurgood Marshall with someone that shared his views on civil rights and also liberal groups were calling his nomination the end of Roe (sound familiar?) and affirmative action. The Reagan and H.W. Bush years were really the start of when this thing became politicized.

    [​IMG]

    Then you get to the W Bush years when the senate started playing games with the appointment process. The Democrats opposed Bush's first batch of appellate nominees, which good ole Chucky Schumer called "trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation." The 107th congress held the majority in the senate and they refused to act on many of the nominations, not giving them or delaying hearings in the judicial committee. During the 108th congress the GOP regained control with a 51-49 advantage, so the Democrats resorted to filibustering many of the nominees they thought were too right wing. The Miguel Estrada confirmation was particularly controversial as his nomination was the first to be filibustered. Of the 9 initial nominees, 3 withdrew. After a couple years of that, the GOP started threatening the "Nuclear Option" in earnest, which was to eliminate the 60 vote threshold for appointments. Eventually the two sides came to a deal and that never happened. But (HUGE surprise coming here....) the Republicans did the same thing to the Obama nominees in the next administration, and in greater numbers. Old Harry Reid gave Moscow Mitch a great idea. Then you know the rest, nuclear option happened (by Reid) when GOP filibustered Obama nominees, Mitch obstructed everyone when the GOP regained control, including not holding hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee and eventually Mitch removed the 60 vote threshold for the SCOTUS as well. And here we are.

    There ya go....all in your lifetime.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...25c65c-8067-11e8-b660-4d0f9f0351f1_story.html

    Federal judicial picks have become more contentious. Trump’s are no exception.

    George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

    Judicial Nominations in the Bush and Obama Administrations’ First Nine Months
     
  18. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    14,129
    940
    688
    Apr 8, 2007
    I agree that they don't hate the environment, it is more that they are consumed with a desire to own the libs, so they have to come out in opposition to whatever the other side is for. The modern GOP doesn't really have any grounding principles left. It is sad to see.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    14,129
    940
    688
    Apr 8, 2007
    I think they do a disservice to their cause by insisting on language that is polarizing. Don't try to sell us on specific actions because global warming, sell us on things we want, like clean air and water for our kids.
     
  20. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Insults are not generally what one says as much as how one says them.

    Telling us that we dont care about the future or we vote as if we dont care for our children, all while ignoring the other items on the ballot wont win many folks over.

    Good (spirited even)conversation that accounts for the multiplicity of reasons we vote would go much further.

    But the generalizations and insults cloud the message. Absolutely.

    That is on both sides.