CDZ Common Ground

[Divine Wind]

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.

All that banning is not only very authoritarian, but costly. How do you plan on paying for it? Tariffs? Won't work because no one can afford to pay them. Tariffs are like sin taxes; keep raising the taxes on cigarettes and eventually only the very rich smoke.

 

[Divine Wind]

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?

You and I are agreed much more than disagreed.

My main point of disagreement, and perhaps it's more about simply fleshing out the details, is your comment about "spending too much of our money and blood supporting/defending/over-throwing other nations". It appears to not only be a large exaggeration and mostly untrue, but isolationist. Two watershed moments in living history is the end of the Cold War and 9/11. IMO, there is "before the end of the Cold War" where your comment applies and only one instance after 9/11 where it applies.

The Preamble of the Constitution empowers our government to provide for the national defense. That empowerment doesn't end at our borders or our beaches.

 

[there4eyeM]

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

None. No.

Let's all agree to that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

None. No.

Let's all agree to that.

Might as well. Both major parties in Congress have agreed to essentially that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

"Conservatives tend to identify themselves (and others) based on individuality, Progressives tend to identify themselves (and others) by the group (or groups) they "belong" to."

Just because one identifies with a group, does not mean that there identity IS that group. There is a difference. Let me explain. While I identify with a particular faith, that is not my identity. I am also, American, a particular gender, of a particular age group, and have a particular skin color or "race". None of these identify who I am, nor what I am, they are merely adjectives to describe me in various ways.​

​

??? You must be unique among humanity. All those things play a role in defining whom one is.

Gender without out a doubt in part defines who one is; it cannot not do so because of the gender roles society assigns. The traits and behaviors encouraged in boys are different from those foisted upon girls. It may be their assertiveness. It may be the matter of behaving in what is considered a masculine or feminine manner. Those behavioral expectations and the extent to which one embraces or rejects them defines whom one is.

Race too defines whom one is. I will cede that race doesn't need to do so, but because of the role it plays in society, it does. That was established with the "Doll Test" whereby it was shown that black children view themselves as lesser humans simply due to their skin color. That lack of confidence is very much part of whom those children were. I can't tell you to what extent that same thing manifests in U.S. minority communities today. I suspect it should be less than it was in the '60s and before, but I doubt it's completely gone. To that end, race in part defines the person one is.

FWIW, it's not clear to me why you took to a behavioral analogy to address a distinction in philosophical approach between conservatives and liberals.

 

[bt404]

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?

You and I are agreed much more than disagreed.

My main point of disagreement, and perhaps it's more about simply fleshing out the details, is your comment about "spending too much of our money and blood supporting/defending/over-throwing other nations". It appears to not only be a large exaggeration and mostly untrue, but isolationist. Two watershed moments in living history is the end of the Cold War and 9/11. IMO, there is "before the end of the Cold War" where your comment applies and only one instance after 9/11 where it applies.

The Preamble of the Constitution empowers our government to provide for the national defense. That empowerment doesn't end at our borders or our beaches.

We spend more on military than the next four countries combined (this includes China and Russia). Meanwhile, we have a child poverty rate of about 20 percent and one of the largest wealth gaps in the first world. You say two "watershed" moments are the end of the Cold War and 9/11. Could you expand on this? The Cold War was pretty much a war between the business oligarchs of the United States and the business oligarchs of the Soviet Union, both countries of whom used proxy countries to do their fighting for them. In what day did these wars benefit the United States.

Here's something to think about for all the jingoists and neoconservatives on this board: EVERY invasion/slaughter/imperial venture in history has been conducted under the guise of "national defense." Not invading/over throwing other nations is not isolationist.

 

[Divine Wind]

We spend more on military than the next four countries combined (this includes China and Russia).....

A common far Left meme. Got actual figures to display? While you're at it, just to compare apples to apples, please include comparisons of economies, per capita income and money spent per service person. After all, it's understandable to the average person that someone with a million dollar warehouse is going to spend more on security than someone with a lemonade stand.

No worries....I really don't expect you to actually provide facts and an intelligent debate. If you do, I'll not only be surprised, but grateful.

Here, as a show of good faith, let me help you get started:

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

The 10 Best Economies In The World | The Huffington Post

List of Countries by Projected GDP 2016 - StatisticsTimes.com

 

[bt404]

We spend more on military than the next four countries combined (this includes China and Russia).....

A common far Left meme. Got actual figures to display? While you're at it, just to compare apples to apples, please include comparisons of economies, per capita income and money spent per service person. After all, it's understandable to the average person that someone with a million dollar warehouse is going to spend more on security than someone with a lemonade stand.

No worries....I really don't expect you to actually provide facts and an intelligent debate. If you do, I'll not only be surprised, but grateful.

Here, as a show of good faith, let me help you get started:

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

The 10 Best Economies In The World | The Huffington Post

List of Countries by Projected GDP 2016 - StatisticsTimes.com

Ahh the usual Conservative resort to the ad hominem. This is to be expected whenever a neoconservative's precious American exceptionalist world view gets even remotely threatened. Don't worry. I won't hold it against you. Nor do I expect you to hold any consistent argument yourself without going to the childishly condescending "libtard" comments.

Where do we start. On military budget:

U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries

This remarkable chart shows how U.S. defense spending dwarfs the rest of the world

Trends in U.S. Military Spending

U.S. Military Spending vs. the World

But those are just alternative facts right?

Your point about "security" needing to be greater and in proper ratio to the economy is so ludicrous as to be almost laughable. Hopefully you aren't serious. Of course the United States has one of the largest economies/GDPs in the world. That doesn't mean that our population has the highest standard of living (not even remotely close in fact. Like I said, we have the highest child poverty rate and wealth disparity in the first world (Inequality - Income inequality - OECD Data). Do we really even need to go through this? Was the United States providing "security" when it actively provided arms and military aid to the Salvadoran death squads, or when we provided crucial military support to the illegal Indonesian invasion of East Timor which led to the virtual slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Timorese civilians, or the overthrow of the social democratic Allende regime in Chile replacing it with the murderous neoliberal Pinochet regime? I, again, ask you to back up your proposition that the Cold War was a "watershed" moment. As expected, you provided no historical facts and quickly accused me of being incapable of producing what you so obviously neglected to cite yourself.

Let's continue this. I'm curious to be enlightened.

 

[usmbguest5318]

And as if the size of our expenditures isn't enough, what's the point when every nation could consider challenging us is a nuclear power just as we are. And let's not kid ourselves about the MAD theory; because the U.S. is the most tech advanced and infrastructure dependent nation around, we suffer most from the devastation of nuclear war. Thus no matter who survives such a thing, we end up far worse off than everyone else if it were to happen.

But let's not go down the nuclear rabbit hole just yet. The simple fact is that unless one is given to pissing off everyone because one's primary way of dealing with everything is "my way or the highway," a nation just doesn't need to have the biggest, baddest and most expensive military on the planet, at least not to the extent of being equal to that of the seven next closest nations' armed forces. After all, if one collaborates with others to create win-win situations, who's going to want to attack? Nobody. They don't have a reason to.

 

[jillian]

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.

he asked about common ground...not partisan hackery

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Puppies.

And anybody who can't agree on that should leave immediately.

 

[Divine Wind]

...And let's not kid ourselves about the MAD theory; because the U.S. is the most tech advanced and infrastructure dependent nation around, we suffer most from the devastation of nuclear war. Thus no matter who survives such a thing, we end up far worse off than everyone else if it were to happen.....

Thanks for the graphics/facts. Agreed that, as a nation with more than most, we have a lot to lose.

...After all, if one collaborates with others to create win-win situations, who's going to want to attack?...

While "unilateralism" isn't a good policy, we've rarely done it. Agreed collaboration with allies and trading partners in win-win situations is the best way to go, but do you really think laying down our arms and offering to trade flowers with ISIS or Kim Jong-un will result in them doing the same? I doubt it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perceptions are subjective.

All experience comes to one through channels of perception.

Ideas are human.

Words are symbols.

 

[jwoodie]

Conservative vs. Progressive

Objectivity vs. Emotionalism
Reality vs. Fantasy
Substance vs. Form
Individual vs. Group Identity
Freedom vs. Coercion
Civility vs. Violence

What is there to agree on?

We can agree that your reductive dichotomy is so comically ludicrous that it's hard to even know if you're serious or just trolling.

Your response certainly illustrates the Substance vs. Form dichotomy. The OP asked a generalized question about what "we" can agree on, and I posited a generalized list of impediments to such agreements. Your attempt at ridicule instead of an honest critique suggests a tacit admission of the points I raised.

 

[bt404]

Conservative vs. Progressive

Objectivity vs. Emotionalism
Reality vs. Fantasy
Substance vs. Form
Individual vs. Group Identity
Freedom vs. Coercion
Civility vs. Violence

What is there to agree on?

We can agree that your reductive dichotomy is so comically ludicrous that it's hard to even know if you're serious or just trolling.

Your response certainly illustrates the Substance vs. Form dichotomy. The OP asked a generalized question about what "we" can agree on, and I posited a generalized list of impediments to such agreements. Your attempt at ridicule instead of an honest critique suggests a tacit admission of the points I raised.

And your response reveals not only a lack of substance, but a somewhat unsurprising retreat. You're right, the OP asked a question on what we can agree on. And you went on to make generalizations of an entire group by stating that Liberals = this bad trait, and Conservatives equal this great wonderful trait. If you want to see my points, go read what I wrote a few posts down from that post, that addressed in detail your false dichotomy.

 

[jwoodie]

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

Acknowledgement is the first step towards recovery.

 

[Eloy]

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?

The division you speak of is actually a polarization between Republicans and Democrats.
Of course all are Americans.
No government, state or federal, has any business making laws about personal lives.
You need to qualify what you mean by "too much power".
The USA has certainly become too entangled in foreign wars usually of its own making.




.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The only common ground this country will ever see.

Been that way since the US Civil War and before.

Since Cain killed Able...

Most of us can find common ground in the fact we will pay taxes and die and everything else will be debated...

 

[jwoodie]

Most of us can find common ground in the fact we will pay taxes and die and everything else will be debated...

Facts and logic can be debated; Good and evil cannot.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Most of us can find common ground in the fact we will pay taxes and die and everything else will be debated...

Facts and logic can be debated; Good and evil cannot.

oh but what you consider to be a fact could be a lie to me and what you consider to be good could be evil to me.

I knows you will disagree...