u/Congregator

What if they’re an odd sort of animal?

I believe it is burned. My Iraqi friend had told me that his mother had acquired it and had practiced magic while he was a child but later his father forbid it. His parents are deceased and is not able to ask his mother.

I found it interesting that two people from different regions were familiar with this, and was wondering what it might be?

Our community is discussing pesticide spraying to fight back mosquitos but last time we did this, we also lost our firefly, bee, dragonfly and ladybug population. It took them about 10 years to make a come back.

I mentioned this to someone who was talking about why they though we need to spray the place down again, and I mentioned that I thought it was a bad idea due to its previous damages of other insects.

The person scoffed and said “maybe we need to spray it down for liberals”- suggesting I’m a liberal.

This this made me laugh because I’m a conservative. To me, thought, conservatives are the ones who also conserve the environment on a moral ground that we are to be good stewards of the earth after inheriting it, under God.

I know not everyone shares my beliefs, people have different religions and not everyone is Christian.

But us Christians believe that we are to be good stewards of the earth and so I find it weird that the Republican Party often times does not focus on the environment as much as it should: without clean air, water and food- we die. It’s the most important thing.

In this, I was called a “liberal”, yet I’m wondering how in the world liberals get to be called the ones who protect the environment???? This doesn’t make any sense. We should literally be the ones protecting the earth and environment

Since personal experiences and personal histories tend towards so much of our beliefs, and many people of various backgrounds go into politics for good faith reasons, it seems very realistic that you’ll end up with people who sway conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, who could be the better person for the job.

We might say “well, democrats are in line with my beliefs on social and economic issues”, but usually these margins are sort of ideological and not necessarily within the scope of the job being performed.

If we know a person might be great for a job and heavily committed and competent for a selected job, why is it that people will vote for the opposite due to party affiliation if they don’t know anything about the other person?

Doesn’t this just mean that people might vote against their own better outcome because they’re committed to their party more so than understanding who is better for the greater outcome?

In this, why do we actually have parties to begin with?

We say it’s so we can alleviate the problem of the uneducated, ignorant, or too busy… so they can pretty much “guesstimate” who they’d vote for… but that’s sort of silly thinking.

That’s actually just simpleton thinking. Voting for people based on their party affiliation is actually just stupid, isn’t it?

Let’s say you want to protect your water way. Candidate X is an environmental engineer and lawyer and is committed to protecting the Chesapeake bay. Yet they are “pro-life”, and so we vote against them because they are pro life, and instead vote for someone with hardly any experience with the Chesapeake bay, but is really into Wall Street betting, but they’re pro-choice.

Doesn’t this seem like a weird conundrum.

This example is born from the top of my head, but I can totally imagine people voting for someone based on these sorts of ideologies that might have absolutely no connection to what’s actually immediately practical.

King George the 3rd initiated anti-gun laws against the colonists. The colonists rebelled against this by injecting a rebelliousness against that law into the 2nd amendment.

“If you tell us it’s illegal to have guns, we are going to make sure everyone has the right to own one”.

That’s my interpretation

Everyone seems to be arguing about what makes COL go down.

I’m not as interested in why we should increase wages, because to me it seems like if COL didn’t increase than wages wouldnt need an increase.

So I’m genuinely interested in why COL would increase?

Of cost is competitive between consumers, why wouldn’t just try to cut the amount of consumers?

Did his arguments have any just claims of innocence, as per Hamilton? Or was he just fabricating the complexities of his situation to save himself?

Or maybe both?