CDZ Common Ground

[bt404]

Liberals = this bad trait, and Conservatives equal this great wonderful trait.

Acknowledgement is the first step towards recovery.

And that folks, is how you know when a Conservative has lost an argument.

 

[usmbguest5318]

what you consider to be a fact

From where does this notion of what one "considers to be a fact" come. Facts aren't debatable. There is no opinion to be had about the verity of objective data and whether an event occurred or didn't. People seem to have this notion that literally everything and anything -- from the meaning of words to whether events actually transpired to whether proven scientific and analytical methodologies -- is open to debate. That just isn't the case.

 

[Bush92]

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?

There is no "common ground." Only those who want to save a once great nation...and those hell bent on destroying it (liberals).

 

[jwoodie]

And that folks, is how you know when a Conservative has lost an argument.

Playing to the mob again?

 

[bt404]

And that folks, is how you know when a Conservative has lost an argument.

Playing to the mob again?

If by mob, you mean those mature enough to have an actual debate, then yepp sure am!

 

[jwoodie]

And that folks, is how you know when a Conservative has lost an argument.

Playing to the mob again?

If by mob, you mean those mature enough to have an actual debate, then yepp sure am!

You seem to use terms like "ad hominem" and "actual debate" without any idea of their meaning or proper application. (Hint: Both require a factual basis.) For example, my reference to the "mob" is directly related to your appeal to the "folks" without any substantive content.

If you are mature enough to have an actual debate, please confine it to relevant facts and logic.

 

[bt404]

And that folks, is how you know when a Conservative has lost an argument.

Playing to the mob again?

If by mob, you mean those mature enough to have an actual debate, then yepp sure am!

You seem to use terms like "ad hominem" and "actual debate" without any idea of their meaning or proper application. (Hint: Both require a factual basis.) For example, my reference to the "mob" is directly related to your appeal to the "folks" without any substantive content.

If you are mature enough to have an actual debate, please confine it to relevant facts and logic.

If you bothered to read my post on page 2, you'd know that I in fact did provide a fairly substantiated response to your dichotomy of "conservative vs progressivism." And your response was simply retreating to the accusation that I wasn't focusing on "common ground" when you were one who first veered off any chance of "common ground" by making grave ludicrous generalizations on entire groups of people.

But fine, I'll repeat myself.

You say Conservatives focus on "individuality" while Progressives focus on "group identity."

There are vast swathes of Conservative movements that base themselves entirely on group identity--that is they identify themselves based on the shared values of Christian fundamentalism--anti-abortion, anti-secularism, anti-evolution and so on.

You say Conservatives focus more on "reality" while Progressives focus more on "fantasy."

Again, the Christian extremist base--you know, the Christians who believe the earth is 5000 years old and that humans once roamed with dinosaurs, are ENTIRELY Conservative. So I'm not sure what "reality" you're talking about. But even non-religious Conservatives soak their heads in long-disproven dogmas, such as the notion that "markets know best", that complete deregulation of financial institutions and "trickle down" economics would lead to more job growth and widespread prosperity when in fact it does the complete opposite (a study by the IMF if you want to know more: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf).

You say Conservatives focus on "substance" instead of "form," and "objectivism vs emotionalism"....

I revert to my comment above.

You say Conservatives value "freedom" and "civility" over "violence and coercion."

Where's the evidence to suggest that this is strictly a "Conservative" trait, whereas the latter is strictly a "progressive" trait? Was the racist Conservative backlash to Obama's inauguration (when mobs of Conservatives called Obama an ape, created mock-lynch trials Racist Backlash Greets President Barack Obama) a testament of Conservative "civility" or "objectivism"?

All this is not to say that Progressives can't be "violent" or overly-"emotional." I'm merely saying that both sides are capable of incredible backwardness and it would be stupid to generalize.

 

[Never3ndr]

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?

I'm assuming I'm from the opposite end of the spectrum for you, so i wanted to say that your points of general agreement are not necessarily agreeable.

- I agree that there is too much division...however, I would say that I enjoy the fact that we have so much diversity. The issue is the division between our diverse people.

- I, personally, don't really think I have much government "intervention" in my everyday personal life at all. So, I would disagree about needing less of it. To be fair, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here anyways...do you have government agents knocking on your door at all hours of the night or something?

- I don't really agree that we have too much power concentrated in too few people. I don't really disagree either. I just can say that we live in a capitalist society, where power is concentrated into few rather than many (as it would in a socialist society)...as I enjoy capitalism I don't really have an issue with power concentrations as they stand.

- As a former military member this is, again, a debatable point. It really depends on your politics here. I would say that one of Obama's largest foreign policy missteps was his increasing passive nature regarding foreign involvement. This passiveness is what led to the rise of ISIS...which, I would assume, you can agree is a bad thing. Now, I'm not going to say that I don't think we aren't involved in too much...but I also realize that there is good reason to be involved in as much as we are and even a great argument that we should be more involved.

 

[Never3ndr]

Some points I think that everybody can agree upon:

- Every citizen in our nation should be given equal opportunity to succeed and achieve. However, equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcomes.

- Every person with our borders / jurisdiction should be answerable to our rule of law, and also be protected by it. Regardless of the office of that person (such as a President), the status of that person (such as a famous movie star), the power of that person (such as a wealthy business person), or the nationality of that person (be it an American citizen or a Russian).

- Our world is not perfect, and neither is our government.

 

[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?

I'm assuming I'm from the opposite end of the spectrum for you, so i wanted to say that your points of general agreement are not necessarily agreeable.

- I agree that there is too much division...however, I would say that I enjoy the fact that we have so much diversity. The issue is the division between our diverse people.

- I, personally, don't really think I have much government "intervention" in my everyday personal life at all. So, I would disagree about needing less of it. To be fair, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here anyways...do you have government agents knocking on your door at all hours of the night or something?

- I don't really agree that we have too much power concentrated in too few people. I don't really disagree either. I just can say that we live in a capitalist society, where power is concentrated into few rather than many (as it would in a socialist society)...as I enjoy capitalism I don't really have an issue with power concentrations as they stand.

- As a former military member this is, again, a debatable point. It really depends on your politics here. I would say that one of Obama's largest foreign policy missteps was his increasing passive nature regarding foreign involvement. This passiveness is what led to the rise of ISIS...which, I would assume, you can agree is a bad thing. Now, I'm not going to say that I don't think we aren't involved in too much...but I also realize that there is good reason to be involved in as much as we are and even a great argument that we should be more involved.

- I agree that there is too much division...however, I would say that I enjoy the fact that we have so much diversity. The issue is the division between our diverse people.

Um, not sure what you are saying here. I agree that the diversity that we have is a good thing. As for the rest of this point, I don't follow what you are trying to say. It seems to me that you have simply re-stated what I had already stated, in your own words. Am I correct?

- I, personally, don't really think I have much government "intervention" in my everyday personal life at all. So, I would disagree about needing less of it. To be fair, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here anyways...do you have government agents knocking on your door at all hours of the night or something?

No, I do not have government agents knocking on my door. Let me explain. There are rules and regulations that affect nearly everything in your life, from the car you drive, to the place you call home (house, apartment, condo), to your place of employ, and even the place(s) you practice your religion. Additionally, there are taxes (both direct (income) and indirect (sales, real estate, business), there are even rules/regulations governing many of our recreational activities. Now, many of these have been put in place to ensure such things as public safety, protect consumers, protect the environment, etc. However, where it crosses a line, for me, is when I have to go to the local authority and say, "please, Mr./Mrs. government official, may I build a new set of stairs to my front door?" I also have to pay a higher tax rate if I am more successful than others, if I buy a vehicle that consumes more fuel, build in one part of a jurisdiction versus another part (in some cases), etc. This is what I am talking about, the government is too involved. Why do I need to ask permission to rebuild my front steps? (they are functionally the same), why does one person have to pay a higher percentage of their income just because they earn more, why are the taxes higher in one part of town versus another? I answer each question with this: Government wants to have power and/or control over as much as possible. It is a natural development when the people at large do not stop it.

- I don't really agree that we have too much power concentrated in too few people. I don't really disagree either. I just can say that we live in a capitalist society, where power is concentrated into few rather than many (as it would in a socialist society)...as I enjoy capitalism I don't really have an issue with power concentrations as they stand.

Are you saying, then, that you have no problem with banks (for example) that are "too big to fail"? In my opinion the government saying such things is an admission that they have failed to properly enforce laws, such as anti-monopoly/anti-trust laws. Now, I do not believe that any business is "too big to fail". The threat of failure is what drives a company (no matter it's size) to make wise decisions. When they fail to make good decisions, or their "gambles" (investments) do not pay off to the extent that they become insolvent, they should be allowed to fail.
Are you also saying that you do not believe that Washington has too much power? That they should have the power to:

• Tell private industry what they can and cannot manufacture.
• Tell private citizens how much water a given fixture can use.
• Tax the wealth left to one's survivors.
• Artificially inflate/deflate prices.
• Establish and maintain a fiat currency.
• Decide what companies are just "too big to fail" and prop them up when they do.

Do you think this is within the scope of the federal government under the COTUS? I would strongly argue that it is not, and I fail to see any part of the COTUS that give these powers to the federal government. In fact, there are aspects of the COTUS that do forbid such powers. With the sole exception of currency. The feds do have the expressed power (one might say duty) to establish a monetary system, however a fiat currency has been proven to be one of the biggest contributors to inflation, often to the point of making itself obsolete (see the Wiemar Republic for an excellent example).