Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile?

[nodoginnafight]

I disagree with "make them learn English" We don't have an official language in the U.S. and there is no need to try to pretend that we do. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Nutz]

I think the ideal that there is no room for compromise has a lot to do with politicizing issues for votes. I believe that issues are created for the sole purpose of creating voting blocks, factions and discontent...giving more power to political parties and less power to the people. The more polarized we become, the easier it is for the political machines to gain power.

IMHO...there are two solutions.

The first is a refusal to allow the Federal government to usurp the authority of the states and to embrace a healthy competition between states to attract a populace through business and public policy. I'm not saying states should be allowed to circumvent the Constitution, but I am saying - most of the 'dividing' issues belong at the state level, not the federal level. Elevating issues to the federal level only provides the political machines more power - taking away from the sovereignty of the individual states - creating a populace dependent on the feds more so than their state.

Just as an example...I am pro-life. I believe the abortion issue is a state issue and not a federal issue. I believe that each state should be able to determine the legality of abortion. If my state decides that abortions are legal, I have the right to move to a state that bans abortion if that issue is that important to me.

Second, we need to start thinking differently. We need to attack the root of the issues. Making abortion illegal doesn't really solve any problem. Instead of debating why abortions should or should not be illegal, perhaps we should discuss why women are in the position that they need abortions.

 

[Redfish]

I disagree with "make them learn English" We don't have an official language in the U.S. and there is no need to try to pretend that we do. Ain't gonna happen.

No national language?? are you fricken crazy? All of our founding documents, all of our legal statutes, all of our congessional bills and records, all of our personal records, all of our personal legal documents, all of our legal correspondence, the language on our currency-----------------all in English. English is the language of the USA, if you don't like it, leave.

 

[Redfish]

I think the ideal that there is no room for compromise has a lot to do with politicizing issues for votes. I believe that issues are created for the sole purpose of creating voting blocks, factions and discontent...giving more power to political parties and less power to the people. The more polarized we become, the easier it is for the political machines to gain power.

IMHO...there are two solutions.

The first is a refusal to allow the Federal government to usurp the authority of the states and to embrace a healthy competition between states to attract a populace through business and public policy. I'm not saying states should be allowed to circumvent the Constitution, but I am saying - most of the 'dividing' issues belong at the state level, not the federal level. Elevating issues to the federal level only provides the political machines more power - taking away from the sovereignty of the individual states - creating a populace dependent on the feds more so than their state.

Just as an example...I am pro-life. I believe the abortion issue is a state issue and not a federal issue. I believe that each state should be able to determine the legality of abortion. If my state decides that abortions are legal, I have the right to move to a state that bans abortion if that issue is that important to me.

Second, we need to start thinking differently. We need to attack the root of the issues. Making abortion illegal doesn't really solve any problem. Instead of debating why abortions should or should not be illegal, perhaps we should discuss why women are in the position that they need abortions.

You make some valid points. But, you left out the one thing that would really work------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Term limits for congress. It should be a temporary sacrifice to serve the country, not a lifetime lucrative "career".

 

[Nutz]

I think the ideal that there is no room for compromise has a lot to do with politicizing issues for votes. I believe that issues are created for the sole purpose of creating voting blocks, factions and discontent...giving more power to political parties and less power to the people. The more polarized we become, the easier it is for the political machines to gain power.

IMHO...there are two solutions.

The first is a refusal to allow the Federal government to usurp the authority of the states and to embrace a healthy competition between states to attract a populace through business and public policy. I'm not saying states should be allowed to circumvent the Constitution, but I am saying - most of the 'dividing' issues belong at the state level, not the federal level. Elevating issues to the federal level only provides the political machines more power - taking away from the sovereignty of the individual states - creating a populace dependent on the feds more so than their state.

Just as an example...I am pro-life. I believe the abortion issue is a state issue and not a federal issue. I believe that each state should be able to determine the legality of abortion. If my state decides that abortions are legal, I have the right to move to a state that bans abortion if that issue is that important to me.

Second, we need to start thinking differently. We need to attack the root of the issues. Making abortion illegal doesn't really solve any problem. Instead of debating why abortions should or should not be illegal, perhaps we should discuss why women are in the position that they need abortions.

You make some valid points. But, you left out the one thing that would really work------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Term limits for congress. It should be a temporary sacrifice to serve the country, not a lifetime lucrative "career".

The problem I have with term limits is that they take away from the balance of power among states in Congress. How would a state like KY be able to compete with a state like CA with term limits in Congress when becoming a COngressional leader is based on tenure? If we had term limits...wouldn't the larger states be able to appoint whomever they wanted to leadership positions.

Term limits give too much power to larger states.

 

[Redfish]

I think the ideal that there is no room for compromise has a lot to do with politicizing issues for votes. I believe that issues are created for the sole purpose of creating voting blocks, factions and discontent...giving more power to political parties and less power to the people. The more polarized we become, the easier it is for the political machines to gain power.

IMHO...there are two solutions.

The first is a refusal to allow the Federal government to usurp the authority of the states and to embrace a healthy competition between states to attract a populace through business and public policy. I'm not saying states should be allowed to circumvent the Constitution, but I am saying - most of the 'dividing' issues belong at the state level, not the federal level. Elevating issues to the federal level only provides the political machines more power - taking away from the sovereignty of the individual states - creating a populace dependent on the feds more so than their state.

Just as an example...I am pro-life. I believe the abortion issue is a state issue and not a federal issue. I believe that each state should be able to determine the legality of abortion. If my state decides that abortions are legal, I have the right to move to a state that bans abortion if that issue is that important to me.

Second, we need to start thinking differently. We need to attack the root of the issues. Making abortion illegal doesn't really solve any problem. Instead of debating why abortions should or should not be illegal, perhaps we should discuss why women are in the position that they need abortions.

You make some valid points. But, you left out the one thing that would really work------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Term limits for congress. It should be a temporary sacrifice to serve the country, not a lifetime lucrative "career".

The problem I have with term limits is that they take away from the balance of power among states in Congress. How would a state like KY be able to compete with a state like CA with term limits in Congress when becoming a COngressional leader is based on tenure? If we had term limits...wouldn't the larger states be able to appoint whomever they wanted to leadership positions.

Term limits give too much power to larger states.

Huh? the states don't appoint committee heads. the states don't select the speaker and minority and majority leaders. I think you are confused.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I disagree with "make them learn English" We don't have an official language in the U.S. and there is no need to try to pretend that we do. Ain't gonna happen.

No national language?? are you fricken crazy? All of our founding documents, all of our legal statutes, all of our congessional bills and records, all of our personal records, all of our personal legal documents, all of our legal correspondence, the language on our currency-----------------all in English. English is the language of the USA, if you don't like it, leave.

There is no official language. I'm sorry if you find that hard to understand, but there is not.

 

[Nutz]

You make some valid points. But, you left out the one thing that would really work------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Term limits for congress. It should be a temporary sacrifice to serve the country, not a lifetime lucrative "career".

The problem I have with term limits is that they take away from the balance of power among states in Congress. How would a state like KY be able to compete with a state like CA with term limits in Congress when becoming a COngressional leader is based on tenure? If we had term limits...wouldn't the larger states be able to appoint whomever they wanted to leadership positions.

Term limits give too much power to larger states.

Huh? the states don't appoint committee heads. the states don't select the speaker and minority and majority leaders. I think you are confused.

No, I'm not confused. In the House, how many representatives are from CA as opposed to KY...or AK...or OH? The House appoints committees...right now, it is mainly based on tenure. Leadership votes are a little different, but tenure is a major factor in the criteria. It is a form of checks and balances.

If there are term limits. Lets say you can only serve, in Congress, 2 terms. How do you determine which representative serves on which committee? How do you determine leadership...a vote? CA has more seats in Congress than any other state, thus they get more votes to determine leadership roles...doesn't that give them an unfair advantage when they vote to determine leadership and committee selections?

I apologize, I am not communicating this very well, bad day. But in the end, think about it...if you lived in a smaller state, what would the hopes be of your representative holding a position of power if we had term limits?

 

[Desperado]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile? Simply because they share nothing in common.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile? Simply because they share nothing in common.

Not true. They share more than they don't.
It depends on what you choose to focus on.

 

[Fishlore]

...1. NO, abortion is murder. limit it to the life of the mother, rape or incest

If abortion is murder then permitting the murder of an innocent victim to save the life of the mother or because the innocent victim was conceived in an act of rape or incest makes no sense. I have never been able to understand the logic of the view of murder as being OK under some circumstances but not others. Can someone explain?

 

[nodoginnafight]

...1. NO, abortion is murder. limit it to the life of the mother, rape or incest

If abortion is murder then permitting the murder of an innocent victim to save the life of the mother or because the innocent victim was conceived in an act of rape or incest makes no sense. I have never been able to understand the logic of the view of murder as being OK under some circumstances but not others. Can someone explain?

Sure - it's not murder - it's called justifiable homicide.

 

[Redfish]

The problem I have with term limits is that they take away from the balance of power among states in Congress. How would a state like KY be able to compete with a state like CA with term limits in Congress when becoming a COngressional leader is based on tenure? If we had term limits...wouldn't the larger states be able to appoint whomever they wanted to leadership positions.

Term limits give too much power to larger states.

Huh? the states don't appoint committee heads. the states don't select the speaker and minority and majority leaders. I think you are confused.

No, I'm not confused. In the House, how many representatives are from CA as opposed to KY...or AK...or OH? The House appoints committees...right now, it is mainly based on tenure. Leadership votes are a little different, but tenure is a major factor in the criteria. It is a form of checks and balances.

If there are term limits. Lets say you can only serve, in Congress, 2 terms. How do you determine which representative serves on which committee? How do you determine leadership...a vote? CA has more seats in Congress than any other state, thus they get more votes to determine leadership roles...doesn't that give them an unfair advantage when they vote to determine leadership and committee selections?

I apologize, I am not communicating this very well, bad day. But in the end, think about it...if you lived in a smaller state, what would the hopes be of your representative holding a position of power if we had term limits?

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say, and you are correct. But I don't share your concern, removing the career politicians from DC is worth it.

 

[Redfish]

I disagree with "make them learn English" We don't have an official language in the U.S. and there is no need to try to pretend that we do. Ain't gonna happen.

No national language?? are you fricken crazy? All of our founding documents, all of our legal statutes, all of our congessional bills and records, all of our personal records, all of our personal legal documents, all of our legal correspondence, the language on our currency-----------------all in English. English is the language of the USA, if you don't like it, leave.

There is no official language. I'm sorry if you find that hard to understand, but there is not.

officially no, practically yes

"There has been at least one interesting contrast to the pro-English efforts. In 1923, Illinois officially declared that English would no longer be the official language of Illinois - but American would be. Many of Illinois' statutes refer to "the American language," (example: 225 ILCS 705/27.01) though the official language of the state is now English (5 ILCS 460/20).

According to U.S. English, the following states have existing official language laws on their books: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming. A small handful date back more than a few decades, such as Louisiana (1811) and Nebraska (1920), but most official language statutes were passed since the 1970's."

 

[Nutz]

Huh? the states don't appoint committee heads. the states don't select the speaker and minority and majority leaders. I think you are confused.

No, I'm not confused. In the House, how many representatives are from CA as opposed to KY...or AK...or OH? The House appoints committees...right now, it is mainly based on tenure. Leadership votes are a little different, but tenure is a major factor in the criteria. It is a form of checks and balances.

If there are term limits. Lets say you can only serve, in Congress, 2 terms. How do you determine which representative serves on which committee? How do you determine leadership...a vote? CA has more seats in Congress than any other state, thus they get more votes to determine leadership roles...doesn't that give them an unfair advantage when they vote to determine leadership and committee selections?

I apologize, I am not communicating this very well, bad day. But in the end, think about it...if you lived in a smaller state, what would the hopes be of your representative holding a position of power if we had term limits?

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say, and you are correct. But I don't share your concern, removing the career politicians from DC is worth it.

Then you create career lobbyists...a lot of them. Which is worst?

 

[Redfish]

...1. NO, abortion is murder. limit it to the life of the mother, rape or incest

If abortion is murder then permitting the murder of an innocent victim to save the life of the mother or because the innocent victim was conceived in an act of rape or incest makes no sense. I have never been able to understand the logic of the view of murder as being OK under some circumstances but not others. Can someone explain?

society has determined that some forms of abortion are in the best interests of the mother and society as a whole, that does not change the fact that an unborn human being is having its life terminated.

I assume you also oppose capital punishment for serial killers

 

[Redfish]

No, I'm not confused. In the House, how many representatives are from CA as opposed to KY...or AK...or OH? The House appoints committees...right now, it is mainly based on tenure. Leadership votes are a little different, but tenure is a major factor in the criteria. It is a form of checks and balances.

If there are term limits. Lets say you can only serve, in Congress, 2 terms. How do you determine which representative serves on which committee? How do you determine leadership...a vote? CA has more seats in Congress than any other state, thus they get more votes to determine leadership roles...doesn't that give them an unfair advantage when they vote to determine leadership and committee selections?

I apologize, I am not communicating this very well, bad day. But in the end, think about it...if you lived in a smaller state, what would the hopes be of your representative holding a position of power if we had term limits?

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say, and you are correct. But I don't share your concern, removing the career politicians from DC is worth it.

Then you create career lobbyists...a lot of them. Which is worst?

I would also ban lobbying-----------its nothing but legalized bribery.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I think the ideal that there is no room for compromise has a lot to do with politicizing issues for votes.

It doesn't.

Liberals believe they have the right to take from others and "redistribute" it, or "spread the wealth around" as one famous liberal put it recently. Somebody's need, makes theft OK.

Conservatives believe they don't.

When liberals say "Compromise is always possible", what they really mean is, "Yes, we want to KEEP taking your stuff."

What "compromise", exactly, can be found between these two positions?

 

[Nutz]

I think the ideal that there is no room for compromise has a lot to do with politicizing issues for votes.

It doesn't.

Liberals believe they have the right to take from others and "redistribute" it, or "spread the wealth around" as one famous liberal put it recently. Somebody's need, makes theft OK.

Conservatives believe they don't.

When liberals say "Compromise is always possible", what they really mean is, "Yes, we want to KEEP taking your stuff."

What "compromise", exactly, can be found between these two positions?

If you read the entire post, you would have seen that I believe that compromise can only be made at the root of the issue. In your example, redistribution is the end solution...what is the core problem and how do we address that? We politicize the end solution because it is easy...it has the sound bite effect and makes you choose one side or the other...thus polarizing positions. There has to be an interest in resolving the problem, not putting a band-aid on it or ripping it off and causing more injury.

And you made the statement that only liberals think compromise can be found. That is not true...and is an example of politicizing issues and making compromise impossible.

 

[thanatos144]

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say, and you are correct. But I don't share your concern, removing the career politicians from DC is worth it.

Then you create career lobbyists...a lot of them. Which is worst?

I would also ban lobbying-----------its nothing but legalized bribery.

So you dont believe in free speech.