CDZ Common Ground

[oldsoul]

I intend for this thread to be completely non-partisan, and free of ideological debate (to the extent possible).

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any? Can we agree that we need to remain a sovereign nation? Can we agree that we need to look-out for our own nation's best interests first? Can we agree that something must be done about the divisions in our nation (ie. racial, gender, regional, right v. left, etc.)? Is there anything we can agree on as a nation?

I say, "yes". Here is some of what I think we can agree on:

• I say we can agree that there is far too much division in our country. Are we of different genders? yes. Are we of different ethnic backgrounds? yes. Are we not still all Americans? I believe that we are all, first and foremost, Americans. Anything beyond that is of little importance in the "big picture".
• I say we can agree that we need less government intervention in our everyday personal life. This does not mean that we necessarily need less government, what I mean is that we can agree that bureaucrats in Washington are dictating too much to the various states. If one state wants to allow a given activity, while others do not, what business is it of Washington's?
• I think we can agree that too much power is concentrated in too few places/people. Whether one believes too much power is concentrated in "big business" or too much is in "big brother" is not the issue.
• I think we can agree that we are spending too much of our money and blood supporting/defending/over-throwing other nations. What nations those are is not the issue.

What else can you think of that we can agree on? Do you think I am wrong on any that I have put forth? Please put political, and ideological issues aside, this is meant as a discussion of what we can agree on. There is a myriad of threads discussing what we disagree on. I would like to discuss what we DO agree on. What brings us together as a nation and a people?

 

[yiostheoy]

Common ground ...

1 - keep out inferior Chinese goods.

2 - keep out illegal Mexicans.

3 - keep out moosleem terrorist by whatever means

4 - build more infrastructure

5 - lower taxes equally on everybody in terms of dollar amounts

6 - huge tariff on expensive German and Jap. cars

7- keep out illegal drugs

8 - wipe ISIS and Al Qaeda off the face of the Earth

9 - concealed carry gun rights in all 50 states for everyone without any criminal record

10 - nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry permits in every state

11 - gays and lesbo's back into the closet

12 - sex change operations illegal in the USA

13 - all abortions after 27 weeks illegal.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It would seem impossible to me to discuss "common ground" while at the same time leaving ideological and political issues out of the discussion, since those very issues comprise the bulk of the division in the country.

In fact, the very issues you present as being agreeable between the divisions are not.

 

[Auld Phart]

The only common ground this country will ever see.

 

[yiostheoy]

The only common ground this country will ever see.

Been that way since the US Civil War and before.

 

[mamooth]

If one state wants to allow a given activity, while others do not, what business is it of Washington's?

What if Alabama wants to allow slavery? Or allow restaurants to stop serving black people? There are valid reasons for the feds stepping in, when the states are the agents of oppression.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If one state wants to allow a given activity, while others do not, what business is it of Washington's?

What if Alabama wants to allow slavery? Or allow restaurants to stop serving black people? There are valid reasons for the feds stepping in, when the states are the agents of oppression.

All states are bound to the Bill of Rights by the 14th Amendment.

Aside from that, this amendment also still stands, and should be reasserted.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[oldsoul]

Common ground ...

1 - keep out inferior Chinese goods.

2 - keep out illegal Mexicans.

3 - keep out moosleem terrorist by whatever means

4 - build more infrastructure

5 - lower taxes equally on everybody in terms of dollar amounts

6 - huge tariff on expensive German and Jap. cars

7- keep out illegal drugs

8 - wipe ISIS and Al Qaeda off the face of the Earth

9 - concealed carry gun rights in all 50 states for everyone without any criminal record

10 - nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry permits in every state

11 - gays and lesbo's back into the closet

12 - sex change operations illegal in the USA

13 - all abortions after 27 weeks illegal.

I'm not sure we all agree on numbers 1,5,6,9,10, and certainly not 11 thru 13. Which leaves 2,3,4,7, and 8. While I don't necessarily think the wording is conducive to agreement, I do think we can agree That things that are illegal should be stopped (where possible), or at least take reasonable steps to reduce them significantly. Protecting ourselves from terrorists should be easy to get widespread agreement on, as with infrastructure improvement.

Here is why I say agreement on the following items would be difficult at best:
1) Would market forces not be a better way to handle inferior products, from any source?
5) Many would argue that this would unfairly benefit (or lack benefit) one group or another.
6) Again, would market forces not be a better way?
9 & 10) Guns are a hot button issue for many people, therefore I doubt we will find much "common ground" here.
11 & 12) How would this benefit anyone? What purpose would it serve? Do we not all have the right to pursue our own happiness, so long as it does not interfere with others' rights?
13) As with the issue of guns, there is little chance we will find any "common ground" here.

 

[oldsoul]

It would seem impossible to me to discuss "common ground" while at the same time leaving ideological and political issues out of the discussion, since those very issues comprise the bulk of the division in the country.

In fact, the very issues you present as being agreeable between the divisions are not.

Could you elaborate?

 

[oldsoul]

If one state wants to allow a given activity, while others do not, what business is it of Washington's?

What if Alabama wants to allow slavery? Or allow restaurants to stop serving black people? There are valid reasons for the feds stepping in, when the states are the agents of oppression.

I am not saying that the federal government should not uphold the constitution, as this post would suggest. This is exactly the type of divisiveness that is plaguing our nation. Why would you go to such an extreme? I am attempting to find some common ground we can start from to at least attempt to heal the wounds of our nation. Suggesting that any state would attempt to reinstitute slavery is ludicrous.

 

[oldsoul]

If one state wants to allow a given activity, while others do not, what business is it of Washington's?

What if Alabama wants to allow slavery? Or allow restaurants to stop serving black people? There are valid reasons for the feds stepping in, when the states are the agents of oppression.

All states are bound to the Bill of Rights by the 14th Amendment.

Aside from that, this amendment also still stands, and should be reasserted.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That is exactly what I am getting at with this. Well said.

 

[jwoodie]

I intend for this thread to be completely non-partisan, and free of ideological debate (to the extent possible).

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any? Can we agree that we need to remain a sovereign nation? Can we agree that we need to look-out for our own nation's best interests first? Can we agree that something must be done about the divisions in our nation (ie. racial, gender, regional, right v. left, etc.)? Is there anything we can agree on as a nation?

I say, "yes". Here is some of what I think we can agree on:

• I say we can agree that there is far too much division in our country. Are we of different genders? yes. Are we of different ethnic backgrounds? yes. Are we not still all Americans? I believe that we are all, first and foremost, Americans. Anything beyond that is of little importance in the "big picture".
• I say we can agree that we need less government intervention in our everyday personal life. This does not mean that we necessarily need less government, what I mean is that we can agree that bureaucrats in Washington are dictating too much to the various states. If one state wants to allow a given activity, while others do not, what business is it of Washington's?
• I think we can agree that too much power is concentrated in too few places/people. Whether one believes too much power is concentrated in "big business" or too much is in "big brother" is not the issue.
• I think we can agree that we are spending too much of our money and blood supporting/defending/over-throwing other nations. What nations those are is not the issue.

What else can you think of that we can agree on? Do you think I am wrong on any that I have put forth? Please put political, and ideological issues aside, this is meant as a discussion of what we can agree on. There is a myriad of threads discussing what we disagree on. I would like to discuss what we DO agree on. What brings us together as a nation and a people?

Interesting thoughts, but there is a basic division between those who believe the People of the United States should govern themselves (democrats) and those who believe that an unelected intelligentsia should make decisions for them (Democrats).

 

[oldsoul]

I intend for this thread to be completely non-partisan, and free of ideological debate (to the extent possible).

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any? Can we agree that we need to remain a sovereign nation? Can we agree that we need to look-out for our own nation's best interests first? Can we agree that something must be done about the divisions in our nation (ie. racial, gender, regional, right v. left, etc.)? Is there anything we can agree on as a nation?

I say, "yes". Here is some of what I think we can agree on:

• I say we can agree that there is far too much division in our country. Are we of different genders? yes. Are we of different ethnic backgrounds? yes. Are we not still all Americans? I believe that we are all, first and foremost, Americans. Anything beyond that is of little importance in the "big picture".
• I say we can agree that we need less government intervention in our everyday personal life. This does not mean that we necessarily need less government, what I mean is that we can agree that bureaucrats in Washington are dictating too much to the various states. If one state wants to allow a given activity, while others do not, what business is it of Washington's?
• I think we can agree that too much power is concentrated in too few places/people. Whether one believes too much power is concentrated in "big business" or too much is in "big brother" is not the issue.
• I think we can agree that we are spending too much of our money and blood supporting/defending/over-throwing other nations. What nations those are is not the issue.

What else can you think of that we can agree on? Do you think I am wrong on any that I have put forth? Please put political, and ideological issues aside, this is meant as a discussion of what we can agree on. There is a myriad of threads discussing what we disagree on. I would like to discuss what we DO agree on. What brings us together as a nation and a people?

Interesting thoughts, but there is a basic division between those who believe the People of the United States should govern themselves (democrats) and those who believe that an unelected intelligentsia should make decisions for them (Democrats).

This is quite true, unfortunately. Thankfully, the democrats far out number the Democrats, as you define them.

 

[mamooth]

I am not saying that the federal government should not uphold the constitution, as this post would suggest. This is exactly the type of divisiveness that is plaguing our nation. Why would you go to such an extreme? I am attempting to find some common ground we can start from to at least attempt to heal the wounds of our nation. Suggesting that any state would attempt to reinstitute slavery is ludicrous.

I put in the slavery example for shock value, and the second example for something more applicable. Some states are trying to make it legal for businesses to refuse to serve gays. That's no different from refusing to serve blacks. By your "If one state wants to allow a given activity, what business is it of Washington?" standard, the feds should allow the states to allow businesses to refuse to serve blacks or gays.

You did specifically ask "Do you think I am I wrong in anything I've put forth?". I think you were wrong about that, and that's why.

14th amendment? The states never thought it barred discrimination before the feds stepped in. People can't magically invoke it to make the issue go away. What happens when states say they have the right to oppress a portion of the population, and the Constitution is not crystal clear on the matter? Do the feds have to allow it?

The free market? Useless. Prejudice can be very profitable, if most of your customer base is prejudiced. That's why discrimination worked economically.

 

[oldsoul]

I am not saying that the federal government should not uphold the constitution, as this post would suggest. This is exactly the type of divisiveness that is plaguing our nation. Why would you go to such an extreme? I am attempting to find some common ground we can start from to at least attempt to heal the wounds of our nation. Suggesting that any state would attempt to reinstitute slavery is ludicrous.

I put in the slavery example for shock value, and the second example for something more applicable. Some states are trying to make it legal for businesses to refuse to serve gays. That's no different from refusing to serve blacks. By your "If one state wants to allow a given activity, what business is it of Washington?" standard, the feds should allow the states to allow businesses to refuse to serve blacks or gays.

You did specifically ask "Do you think I am I wrong in anything I've put forth?". I think you were wrong about that, and that's why.

14th amendment? The states never thought it barred discrimination before the feds stepped in. People can't magically invoke it to make the issue go away. What happens when states say they have the right to oppress a portion of the population, and the Constitution is not crystal clear on the matter? Do the feds have to allow it?

The free market? Useless. Prejudice can be very profitable, if most of your customer base is prejudiced. That's why discrimination worked economically.

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument, there are laws (and case law) that prevents what you are suggesting. What I am referring to, as an example, would be if New York were to pass a law that sets the speed limit on multi-lane divided highways at 55 MPH, and New Jersey passes a law that sets the speed limit at 65 MPH, what business is it of Washington's? You are misconstruing my statements to mean that a state should be able to pass a law that is discriminatory based on a legally protected status. That is not what I am saying at all, suggesting so is a symptom of the problem that I have with so many partisan people. Allowing states to have different laws is actually protected by the constitution with the clause, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Pretty simple, if the COTUS does not say it's the business of Washington, then it's not. I really don't get what is confusing about this. Maybe you can enlighten me as why this is not quite clear to you.

 

[mamooth]

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument, there are laws (and case law) that prevents what you are suggesting.

Why do you think federal discrimination laws that bind the states are _not_ interference from Washington, the thing you say should be forbidden?

Seems cut and dry that it is such interference. I don't get why that's so confusing to you. Maybe you can enlighten everyone as to why you fail to understand such a simple point. Is there some way we can make it simpler for you?

So, how'd you like your condescending attitude tossed back at you? The point there is that you seem to want to insult people instead of having a discussion. And by the way, "partisan" does not mean "people who disagree with me on a point", not matter how hard you try to define it that way.

 

[oldsoul]

Why do you think federal discrimination laws that bind the states are _not_ interference from Washington, the thing you say should be forbidden?

It's not interference simply because it is a power enumerated in the COTUS. Pretty simple, right?
As to what you interpreted as "condescending", I apologise, that was not my intent. I simply do not understand how this is not quite clear.

And by the way, "partisan" does not mean "people who disagree with me on a point", not matter how hard you try to define it that way.

You are quite correct there, and I have never intended to insinuate otherwise.

Getting back to the OP, is there anything that you think we can agree on?

 

[usmbguest5318]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

 

[oldsoul]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

Okay, yes. We can agree on things that basic, but after doing so, where's it lead? Nowhere. Thus the agreement is as usefull as tits on a bull. I can agree that I like air and water too. It's going to be about as useful an agreement as other so very, very basic concepts.