Generally good advice, although only one side of the political spectrum will take it to heart.

You seem to be considering your reasons as what is “correct” and not the goal….The goal being understanding and resolution toward a desired compromise or plan of action. Contained within your thinly veiled reference to — -let’s call them “Non-Liberals’s” — — supposed love affair with fracking and allusion to a denial of climate change is your presumption that because some may not agree with your reasons, they are therefore in opposition to your goal i.e. in love with fracking and denying climate change. If you listen to the arguments presented by at least the saner ones of the Non-Liberals, you might find that there is more common acreage upon which to work for a common goal, albeit for competely different reasons….In other words, the point of this article. Will time prove Liberals reasons “correct”? Probably. But what is the “correct” part?…Your reasons(or arguments, data, evidence, etc…) or the result (a reduction of fracking and a combined effort to combat climate change)? Time may also prove many Conservative reasons “correct”, but what good does that do, if the goal is not achieved?…The question remains will we be able to seperate a false, ego-driven need for so-called “correct” reasons in order to acheive truely “correct” goals.

Like what you read? Give Brion Boyles a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.