Liberals seek the destruction of Conservative values.

Take some time to read the comments and see how this liberal is attacking everyone of my points and stomping on them to show me how wrong my views are.

Not true. Conservatives seek to put boundaries and limits.

“Guess you brought up peanuts because they can harm people as drugs do, otherwise there is no correlation to peanuts and this conversation. In 2018, over 67,300 Americans died from drug-involved overdose of illicit drugs and prescription opioids. It is asinine and irresponsible of people to make more drugs legal and therefore more accessible to people. If you want to compare that to the 150 children who die every year from allergy reactions as an important figure, while ignoring the 67,300... you are an idiot.”

You seem more intent on insulting me than actually having a conversation.

I’m far more interested in the latter. If you have something more constructive to contribute, I happily invite you to do so.

Maybe it is free education for all people even when they are fully capable of paying for it on their own, or healthcare for everyone when there are many people already capable of paying it and those who can’t have state Medicare to pay for their needs, or it is legalized drugs or lowering the drinking age or voting age.

legalizing drugs = stupidity!
Lowering drinking age = stupidity!
lowering voting age = stupidity!

see the next post...

Legalizing drugs for what purpose? I know to many people who have been F-ed up on drugs to ever support that. They are addictive, dangerous, and ruin lives. People should not have easy access to them.
Lowering the drinking age... I don't see why but that is an issue I would give way on easily as many countries have lower drinking ages... again I don't see they point because the younger people are, the more they don't think about the consequences of their stupid actions. I think it is there for the protection of others. As much as parents fail to parent these days, this would be a mistake I believe and the data would quickly show it as such.
Lowering the voting age! Good God have mercy! lol I have middle schoolers wanting this every year and writing persuasive essays to me about it... I am a ELA teacher... Their reasons, as an overwhelming majority, are elementary at best for supporting their candidate... 20 out of 30 students have no clue what-so-ever and vote based on their friends or peer pressure. 5 to 7 of the remaining 10 students would be able to tell you at least what 3 of the political stands are for the candidate they support but yet have no clue what the other candidate values or stands for... basically, "mommy and daddy say..." is the nutshell version I get... and then a have 3 to 5 kids each class that actually know a fair amount but is it enough to vote? I would question the age... 17 maybe not so bad... but any lower... I don't see how the kids are knowledgeable enough to vote on anything more than emotions or popular opinion. (Maybe liberals identify with them and feel the need to give them power to vote because they are voting on emotion rather than knowledge... just my thoughts). Maybe 17, but any lower than that would be unwise.

Would also like to clarify that some drugs may not be addictive but there are people who are more prone to addiction than others. However, as this would typically fall under a personal responsibility, I don’t see the point in conservatives limiting access based on that.

That would be as absurd as making it illegal to farm, sell and eat peanuts because some have an allergy to them. Though, given the ludicrous state of the country, I expect such a proposition in less than a decade.

Do you agree that people be required to wear masks to help keep others safe from Covid-19? How is that any different than trying to keep dangerous drugs away from people who could be harmed by them? Letting people wonder freely without protection from Covid-19 would be as absurd as making it legal to get any drug as freely as cold medicine. To me that is emotional and not logical.

Sadly, there are already schools banning peanut products.

At this time, yes. Most viruses effect the elderly and the sick already but this virus is still relatively new and deadly. So, more information is needed in addition to extra precautions that some might deem unnecessary. The last few viruses in the last decade to have higher than 0.99% fatality rate were Ebola and SARS. The latter for which COVID is very similar to had a reported fatality rate of 9%. So, experts said early on that we should expect COVID's fatality rate to be higher than 1%, and according to the data, it most certainly is.

How is that any different than trying to keep dangerous drugs away from people who could be harmed by them?

The key difference is that quarantine is no longer an option. In the best case scenario of a quarantine; an infected person would be kept in isolations until symptoms diminish or until the person is no longer infected; decreasing the risk of spread. It is too late for that. There is no chance that COVID can be contained now because people would rather debate what is and isn't necessary precautions for a virus even if these precautions are temporary.

No one is advocating keeping drugs or peanuts away from people as a temporary measure. Until I start hearing people advocating that COVID measures MUST remain in place even after the vaccine has been distributed to 99.9% of the people (which even THAT will have push back by anti-vaxxers), then I'll happily join the bandwagon that Covid precautions are intrusive and unnecessary.

Guess you brought up peanuts because they can harm people as drugs do, otherwise there is no correlation to peanuts and this conversation. In 2018, over 67,300 Americans died from drug-involved overdose of illicit drugs and prescription opioids. It is asinine and irresponsible of people to make more drugs legal and therefore more accessible to people. If you want to compare that to the 150 children who die every year from allergy reactions as an important figure, while ignoring the 67,300... you are an idiot.

"for people to use them"

Why should people be free to use what harms others?

"some drugs yes, some drugs no"

So what is your stand on guns?

I assume you are against guns but pro drugs... tell me the logic in that please and prove to me you are not being emotional.

You and I know full-well we are talking not just about mushrooms.
Pot: from the national institute on Drug abuse: Fact: Driving after using marijuana is dangerous... "Teen drivers aren’t getting the message that both alcohol and drugs—including marijuana—are dangerous risks behind the wheel. Not only that, but drivers under the influence of these substances endanger other users of the road as well... Only recently have people started talking about how driving high or buzzed is just as risky as driving drunk... Drugs and alcohol interfere with the brain’s ability to function properly. THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, affects areas of the brain that control the body’s movements, balance, coordination, memory, and judgment, so it’s no surprise that marijuana and driving don’t mix."

Please enlighten me. Perhaps taking away women’s rights to their own restrooms so men can use them. Oh wait that was liberals.

Oh right letting illegal immigrants enter the country.

To which value do you refer? Unlimited freedoms of abortion access for women right up to the baby being delivered, or giving hormones to minors in order to block natural puberty, or teaching people there is no God?

On access to abortions: All states allow abortions up to six weeks. Most women know by then if they want to keep it. Considering most women will know after 2 weeks that they are pregnant, that gives about a month to figure it out before options become limited. That is reasonable. The reason states ban abortions after 21 weeks is the viability of the unborn child which is nearly if not fully capable of surviving by that time. It is viewed as murder after 21 weeks and rightly so.

On god: Many liberal people are God believing people, true, but conservatives are not the ones saying keep religion out of everything: money, pledge, school, government... most people acknowledge a need for a higher being, most of the ones arguing against those "intrusions" are liberals.

On LGBTQ: What rights please explain more what you think LGBTQ people don't have rights to.

On same sex marriage: 37 states have legalized same sex marriages... most of the people I know didn't mind traveling out of state to get married. To them it was even a kind of novelty to do so, an added talking point. The federal government as given states the power to make this decision.

An added note: many religions view these same sex marriages as immoral and thus it is against the religious views of the citizens to force this view on them... Is it not enough that the majority of states have already legalized this and only a minority of states are "sanctuary states" for those people believing in those religious views? Or should we crush those as well in our liberal vendetta?

ALL people need representation in government, LGBTQ are not above people of faith. When clashing views meet, something has to give and compromise is not unreasonable. Who should have a greater voice? What do you call equitability?

I didn't "hear" that, I read it. Just Google search, "how soon do women know they are pregnant" You will find it. It can be tested as quickly as 10 days but that is rare. A concerned woman who was fearful of becoming pregnant would know the signs.

The jump from 6 weeks to 21 weeks is because that is the legal spread in the nation. Some states ban abortions at 6 weeks but others wait until 21 weeks... at 15 weeks some states allow it some do not so the person would need to know their state's law. It does happen that 1 in 400 women may not know they are pregnant until the 15 week mark. If that happens, it becomes harder to get abortions and rightly so as the laws exist to protect women and mother's in the case of wrongful death of unborn child in utero. The law must be fair and unbias.

What is it exactly that you are seeing that is "unconstitutional" about religion? For that matter, how is LGBTQ's "self view" not the same as the religious person's "self view"? I support their rights to live freely as they choose, just don't push the views in my face constantly. In many ways I see LGBTQ and Religion as ALMOST THE SAME, yet opposing, thing. Religious people say, "This is what I believe to be true for me & others, accept me as I am. Don't deny me of my rights to practice what I believe or try to change me or it." The LGBTQ people say, "This is what I believe to be true for me & others, accept me as I am. Don't deny me of my rights to practice what I believe or try to change me or it. I see LGBTQ go too far saying, "In fact others need to change their views and accept LGBTQ values." Pushing their views on others, forcing them to comply with LGBTQ values and beliefs. I push against that part.

Saying people of religious faith should not serve in government is like saying LGBTQ can not serve in government. Or if they do serve, they MUST keep their beliefs apart from their job. That is discrimination on the basis of creed. That would be unconstitutional. Permitting religion or even supporting religious views as freedoms is not unconstitutional unless the government were to establish a "state religion" for all the people to follow. I would not support that either. People in government praying for gods or God's help in all things, I fully support and am not afraid of people asking for help from God/gods in any decision making they do. It shows humility and wisdom.

Tell me what you now about John Money... then we will talk more.

John Money has everything to do with LGBTQ these days. Without John Money there would be no movement because there would be no journals and records for people to continually recopy and post to the internet. Without John Money saying, "I have an idea..." there would not have been transgender study in America. To say John Money has nothing to do with things related to LGBTQ displays your lack of willingness to learn about things from historic views and only take things at present day cultural value. Does popular opinion replace traditional views of what is right and wrong? If so, who is to say it will not change again?

No good side to religions? That makes you religiophobic.

Yes it does

You are religiophobic.

Octavia_Melody0 ups, 4d
"Fact: Driving after using marijuana is dangerous"

I never said it wasn't. So should we outlaw alcohol as well?
**********************
"Octavia_Melody0 ups, 6d, 1 reply
How does someone using pot or mushrooms hurt others?"

I answered your question and you still refute me? What a tool.