(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

No one is arguing that, in general, Dem positions result in a federal, state, local government that is more active and has more control/power. The issue at hand is George’s desire to try and psychoanalyze the underlying reasoning for those policy positions, and that fundamentally (you know, what those ideas are built on) is the desire for power. I refute that hypothesis and think it is an incredibly smug position to hold.