Will we ever be one country again?

[kaz]

so you want to live in a socialist state? try north korea.

I am very happy here in the Republic of Ireland. Much more freedom here than where you are.

How many guns you own?

I live in a civilized country, no need for guns unless you are a hunter.

The US isn't civilized, gotcha. What a stupid comment

It is a dangerous place, too many guns, too many angry people. I prefer to live in a country where the police do not carry firearms than a place where they carry a glock and the most firepower that they can. Yes, I am the stupid one.

I said you're stupid for saying America is not civilized, try to keep up

 

[jillian]

Q. Will we ever be one country again

A. Not as long as you and others like you on both ends of the spectrum continue to hate and fear everyone whose ideas challenge your/their own.

Fixed it for you.
.

He had it right the first time.

Don't change people's posts

 

[NoNukes]

I am very concerned about the divisions within this country. The rioting, the looting, the destruction of public and private property, the corruption of our media, the indoctrination of our young people, the Nazi like tactics against those who disagree with you, the suppression of free speech.

Over the last 20 or so years, we have become divided by race, sex, age, income, ethnicity, religion, location, political party, et. al.

Does anyone see a way to unite this country? Would we be better off to split the country into two or three nations? Why is it more important for your party to win than your nation?

Watching this is very depressing and I am sure the founders are turning over in their graves over what has become of the USA.

Why must we hate those who worship differently, think differently, live differently? Why do those on the left believe that we must all believe what they believe? (same question for those on the right).

We are at a crossroads, what happens next?

Were you born after 1975? That's when I graduated from high school. I remember a time we were far more divided than today. History is a marvelous thing. It provides perspective.

You may be remembering the Vietnam era which was when violent rioting first became a popular form of protest. But I am older than you, Nosmo, and I don't recall the nation being anywhere near as divided then. With some exceptions, people were much more able to put things into proper perspective in the 60's and 70's. They could appreciate a President not of their party who did something good, were not so quick to automatically condemn or extrapolate into something bad everything somebody on the other side says. We were allowed to disagree peacefully.

I agree, but to a point. There was the America, Love it or leave it crowd too. Those of us with long hair had to watch our backs if not in the right place. Gays had to stay in the closet.

 

[kaz]

Where do you shoot your AR-15?

First I stick it up your ass, then.....

You're the one who sounds angry, guy, not Owebo

You mistake a joke with anger.

"Stick it up your ass?" How was it a joke?

You clearly have flagrant double standards with Republicans and Democrats

He asked me where I shoot my AR-15, which is a really stupid question.

That doesn't make "stick it up your ass" a "joke." He's saying you are not free to defend yourself in Ireland. You keep saying it's freer and when I ask you how all you're saying is you like it more. You view America as an international leftist who's never been here's satirical decription. Yep, we all here hold Bibles and walk around shooting anyone who looks at us funny and we're constantly shootin up just cus, yeah, you know a lot right there about us. Yeah

 

[NoNukes]

I am very happy here in the Republic of Ireland. Much more freedom here than where you are.

How many guns you own?

I live in a civilized country, no need for guns unless you are a hunter.

The US isn't civilized, gotcha. What a stupid comment

It is a dangerous place, too many guns, too many angry people. I prefer to live in a country where the police do not carry firearms than a place where they carry a glock and the most firepower that they can. Yes, I am the stupid one.

I said you're stupid for saying America is not civilized, try to keep up

And I gave you a good answer defending what I said. One which you obviously are unable to reply to. You just cherry pick things that I say to comment on them. Like taking sound bites that are convenient.

 

[NoNukes]

First I stick it up your ass, then.....

You're the one who sounds angry, guy, not Owebo

You mistake a joke with anger.

"Stick it up your ass?" How was it a joke?

You clearly have flagrant double standards with Republicans and Democrats

He asked me where I shoot my AR-15, which is a really stupid question.

That doesn't make "stick it up your ass" a "joke." He's saying you are not free to defend yourself in Ireland. You keep saying it's freer and when I ask you how all you're saying is you like it more. You view America as an international leftist who's never been here's satirical decription. Yep, we all here hold Bibles and walk around shooting anyone who looks at us funny and we're constantly shootin up just cus, yeah, you know a lot right there about us. Yeah

We do not need guns to defend ourselves in Ireland. Having guns to defend yourself is not freedom, not needing them is freedom.

 

[NoNukes]

First I stick it up your ass, then.....

You're the one who sounds angry, guy, not Owebo

You mistake a joke with anger.

"Stick it up your ass?" How was it a joke?

You clearly have flagrant double standards with Republicans and Democrats

He asked me where I shoot my AR-15, which is a really stupid question.

That doesn't make "stick it up your ass" a "joke." He's saying you are not free to defend yourself in Ireland. You keep saying it's freer and when I ask you how all you're saying is you like it more. You view America as an international leftist who's never been here's satirical decription. Yep, we all here hold Bibles and walk around shooting anyone who looks at us funny and we're constantly shootin up just cus, yeah, you know a lot right there about us. Yeah

Never been there? I lived there the first 45 years of my life. I was there 3 times in the past year, do try to keep up.

 

[Redfish]

I am very concerned about the divisions within this country. The rioting, the looting, the destruction of public and private property, the corruption of our media, the indoctrination of our young people, the Nazi like tactics against those who disagree with you, the suppression of free speech.

Over the last 20 or so years, we have become divided by race, sex, age, income, ethnicity, religion, location, political party, et. al.

Does anyone see a way to unite this country? Would we be better off to split the country into two or three nations? Why is it more important for your party to win than your nation?

Watching this is very depressing and I am sure the founders are turning over in their graves over what has become of the USA.

Why must we hate those who worship differently, think differently, live differently? Why do those on the left believe that we must all believe what they believe? (same question for those on the right).

We are at a crossroads, what happens next?

I appreciate your thinking about these things. We can start by making sure that everyone's rights are protected. That does not mean that any group gets to decide that they don't like certain people so can refuse to serve them, hire them or violate their rights in other ways.

Probably not voting for someone who spews hate would help, too. I'm afraid installing Donald as president along with his white supremacist advisor is not particularly helpful.

more hypocrisy from someone who supported the most corrupt party and candidate in history. The DNC cheated Bernie from the nomination, people who voted for him were disenfranchised by the dem super delegates.
Seems like all the hate spewing is coming from the leftists like Whoopi, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, et al

 

[kaz]

How many guns you own?

I live in a civilized country, no need for guns unless you are a hunter.

The US isn't civilized, gotcha. What a stupid comment

It is a dangerous place, too many guns, too many angry people. I prefer to live in a country where the police do not carry firearms than a place where they carry a glock and the most firepower that they can. Yes, I am the stupid one.

I said you're stupid for saying America is not civilized, try to keep up

And I gave you a good answer defending what I said. One which you obviously are unable to reply to. You just cherry pick things that I say to comment on them. Like taking sound bites that are convenient.

Your answer was pure demagoguery. Only an idiot would say America is "not civilized"

 

[kaz]

You're the one who sounds angry, guy, not Owebo

You mistake a joke with anger.

"Stick it up your ass?" How was it a joke?

You clearly have flagrant double standards with Republicans and Democrats

He asked me where I shoot my AR-15, which is a really stupid question.

That doesn't make "stick it up your ass" a "joke." He's saying you are not free to defend yourself in Ireland. You keep saying it's freer and when I ask you how all you're saying is you like it more. You view America as an international leftist who's never been here's satirical decription. Yep, we all here hold Bibles and walk around shooting anyone who looks at us funny and we're constantly shootin up just cus, yeah, you know a lot right there about us. Yeah

We do not need guns to defend ourselves in Ireland. Having guns to defend yourself is not freedom, not needing them is freedom.

So you carried a gun when you were here?

You are neither certain to need a gun here rather than certain to not need a gun there. It's just your personal feeling. Also, gun murders are growing in Europe

 

[kaz]

You're the one who sounds angry, guy, not Owebo

You mistake a joke with anger.

"Stick it up your ass?" How was it a joke?

You clearly have flagrant double standards with Republicans and Democrats

He asked me where I shoot my AR-15, which is a really stupid question.

That doesn't make "stick it up your ass" a "joke." He's saying you are not free to defend yourself in Ireland. You keep saying it's freer and when I ask you how all you're saying is you like it more. You view America as an international leftist who's never been here's satirical decription. Yep, we all here hold Bibles and walk around shooting anyone who looks at us funny and we're constantly shootin up just cus, yeah, you know a lot right there about us. Yeah

Never been there? I lived there the first 45 years of my life. I was there 3 times in the past year, do try to keep up.

Then why do you believe the hyperbolic view of America as presented by the elitist international left? If you were here 45 years, you'd know that's not accurate

 

[Foxfyre]

I am very concerned about the divisions within this country. The rioting, the looting, the destruction of public and private property, the corruption of our media, the indoctrination of our young people, the Nazi like tactics against those who disagree with you, the suppression of free speech.

Over the last 20 or so years, we have become divided by race, sex, age, income, ethnicity, religion, location, political party, et. al.

Does anyone see a way to unite this country? Would we be better off to split the country into two or three nations? Why is it more important for your party to win than your nation?

Watching this is very depressing and I am sure the founders are turning over in their graves over what has become of the USA.

Why must we hate those who worship differently, think differently, live differently? Why do those on the left believe that we must all believe what they believe? (same question for those on the right).

We are at a crossroads, what happens next?

Were you born after 1975? That's when I graduated from high school. I remember a time we were far more divided than today. History is a marvelous thing. It provides perspective.

You may be remembering the Vietnam era which was when violent rioting first became a popular form of protest. But I am older than you, Nosmo, and I don't recall the nation being anywhere near as divided then. With some exceptions, people were much more able to put things into proper perspective in the 60's and 70's. They could appreciate a President not of their party who did something good, were not so quick to automatically condemn or extrapolate into something bad everything somebody on the other side says. We were allowed to disagree peacefully.

I agree, but to a point. There was the America, Love it or leave it crowd too. Those of us with long hair had to watch our backs if not in the right place. Gays had to stay in the closet.

Cultural norms have always been an issue re those who pushed the envelope. Most especially when they do it in a way that is 'in the face' of those who just want to be who they are and live as they choose.

I think it started with civil upheavel in the 1960's--the Watts riots, the terrorism of the Black Panthers movement, etc. along with the dropped out, zoned out, tuned out Hippie generation who eventually morphed into the violent protests of the Vietnam War. A whole generation seemed to dump the values and social norms of the previous generation and replace those values with drugs, obscenity, dishevelment in dress, violence, and hate disguised as 'love not war.'

The 'long hairs' seemed to be the ones participating in the more violent protests, were burning flags and draft cards, and generally being unAmerican in the eyes of most folks. There was push back against that and certainly there were thugs on the other side that enjoyed being violent too.

Most of the young of course were not involved in all that. But enough were to tar all who chose to be different.

And gay people were openly opposed when they chose to get in people's faces and began forming 'gay societies' that, to most folks were engaged in bad and/or risky behavior as AIDS became the new terrible deadly and most feared disease. Militant gay people did 'gay pride' parades or put floats in the 4th of July celebrations or otherwise went public with what most of saw as obscenity, vulgarity, and inappropriateness.

Most gay people did not do that of course, but enough did to tar everybody in the eyes of many.

But even then most folks did not return violence for violence. There were thuggish people who used all that, including desegregation, as an excuse for bullying and other general hostility, But most of us lived in peace with the long haired or gay people or black/white/brown people or whomever among us. And even with the pockets of violence and acting out here and there, we were not really a divided people.

IMO, it took an angry, judgmental, intolerant, militant, and abusive Progressivism to tear us apart and pit us all against each other. And yes, I am angry about that.

 

[Flopper]

Compromise, a dirty word by both sides is the only way to bring the nation together short of totalitarian rule which of course only suppresses the division.

There is no simple answer but there are a lot of small steps that would eventually have an effect. Just like a third grade teacher, leaders in congress should seat members alphabetically and breakup the clicks. The president should substitute "We" for "I" in all speeches and comments and stop attacking those that attack him because it only escalates the division. Both congress and the administration has to abandon the goal of packing the judiciary with political idealists but rather pick judges to achieve ideological balance and fairness.

The leadership in this country acts like a bunch kids screaming, "he started it". That has to stop. What the previous party in power or president did or did not do is rarely any justification for current actions. Whatever the issue, actions need to stand on their own merit.

There is no point on which compromise is possible.

As long as the two sides share the most basic common golds compromise is possible. Healthy disagreement, and debate leading to compromise is the American way. Without compromise, chaos is the only alternative in a democratic form of government.

How does one compromise with people who are smashing windows, lighting cars on fire, stopping traffic and attacking other people because of their politics? Where is the compromise, only assault half the people you wanted??????

You know quite well, I'm writing about political compromise among political leaders in Washington not rioters in the streets. That diversion won't work.

That may be, but remember that political leaders cater to their voters. Those are the people Democrats have to pander to.

That's ridiculous. Extremist elements are always given more than their share of media attention in street demonstrations which gives the impression that they are the majority. Whether it's anti-Trump demonstration, a Tea Party rallies, gay rights parade, or whatever, extremists do not drive politicians on either side because they constitute a very small percent of the voters.

 

[Mac1958]

Q. Will we ever be one country again

A. Not as long as you and others like you on both ends of the spectrum continue to hate and fear everyone whose ideas challenge your/their own.

Fixed it for you.
.

He had it right the first time.

Don't change people's posts

Keep reading. Post 15. He agreed with me. Tough shit.

I can certainly understand how someone like you wouldn't like what I wrote. Tough shit.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no point on which compromise is possible.

As long as the two sides share the most basic common golds compromise is possible. Healthy disagreement, and debate leading to compromise is the American way. Without compromise, chaos is the only alternative in a democratic form of government.

How does one compromise with people who are smashing windows, lighting cars on fire, stopping traffic and attacking other people because of their politics? Where is the compromise, only assault half the people you wanted??????

You know quite well, I'm writing about political compromise among political leaders in Washington not rioters in the streets. That diversion won't work.

That may be, but remember that political leaders cater to their voters. Those are the people Democrats have to pander to.

That's ridiculous. Extremist elements are always given more than their share of media attention in street demonstrations which gives the impression that they are the majority. Whether it's anti-Trump demonstration, a Tea Party rallies, gay rights parade, or whatever, extremists do not drive politicians on either side because they constitute a very small percent of the voters.

Yes, a very small percent of the voters, smaller than cross dressers?

It's not just the protesters and rioters, but those voters who support them. Do you think Black Lies Matter is some major voting block of the Democrats? Of course not, but a lot of blacks are behind the movement of killing cops.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

so you want to live in a socialist state? try north korea.

I am very happy here in the Republic of Ireland. Much more freedom here than where you are.

How many guns you own?

I live in a civilized country, no need for guns unless you are a hunter.

The US isn't civilized, gotcha. What a stupid comment

It is a dangerous place, too many guns, too many angry people. I prefer to live in a country where the police do not carry firearms than a place where they carry a glock and the most firepower that they can. Yes, I am the stupid one.

We have no choice really. We have liberals here. Liberals are violent people if you didn't get a chance to see the riots they are involved in.

Before we can get rid of our guns, we'd have to get rid of liberals first. Since that can't be done in our country (Lord knows we're trying) we need our guns to protect ourselves from liberals.

 

[Nosmo King]

I am very concerned about the divisions within this country. The rioting, the looting, the destruction of public and private property, the corruption of our media, the indoctrination of our young people, the Nazi like tactics against those who disagree with you, the suppression of free speech.

Over the last 20 or so years, we have become divided by race, sex, age, income, ethnicity, religion, location, political party, et. al.

Does anyone see a way to unite this country? Would we be better off to split the country into two or three nations? Why is it more important for your party to win than your nation?

Watching this is very depressing and I am sure the founders are turning over in their graves over what has become of the USA.

Why must we hate those who worship differently, think differently, live differently? Why do those on the left believe that we must all believe what they believe? (same question for those on the right).

We are at a crossroads, what happens next?

Were you born after 1975? That's when I graduated from high school. I remember a time we were far more divided than today. History is a marvelous thing. It provides perspective.

You may be remembering the Vietnam era which was when violent rioting first became a popular form of protest. But I am older than you, Nosmo, and I don't recall the nation being anywhere near as divided then. With some exceptions, people were much more able to put things into proper perspective in the 60's and 70's. They could appreciate a President not of their party who did something good, were not so quick to automatically condemn or extrapolate into something bad everything somebody on the other side says. We were allowed to disagree peacefully.

I agree, but to a point. There was the America, Love it or leave it crowd too. Those of us with long hair had to watch our backs if not in the right place. Gays had to stay in the closet.

Cultural norms have always been an issue re those who pushed the envelope. Most especially when they do it in a way that is 'in the face' of those who just want to be who they are and live as they choose.

I think it started with civil upheavel in the 1960's--the Watts riots, the terrorism of the Black Panthers movement, etc. along with the dropped out, zoned out, tuned out Hippie generation who eventually morphed into the violent protests of the Vietnam War. A whole generation seemed to dump the values and social norms of the previous generation and replace those values with drugs, obscenity, dishevelment in dress, violence, and hate disguised as 'love not war.'

The 'long hairs' seemed to be the ones participating in the more violent protests, were burning flags and draft cards, and generally being unAmerican in the eyes of most folks. There was push back against that and certainly there were thugs on the other side that enjoyed being violent too.

Most of the young of course were not involved in all that. But enough were to tar all who chose to be different.

And gay people were openly opposed when they chose to get in people's faces and began forming 'gay societies' that, to most folks were engaged in bad and/or risky behavior as AIDS became the new terrible deadly and most feared disease. Militant gay people did 'gay pride' parades or put floats in the 4th of July celebrations or otherwise went public with what most of saw as obscenity, vulgarity, and inappropriateness.

Most gay people did not do that of course, but enough did to tar everybody in the eyes of many.

But even then most folks did not return violence for violence. There were thuggish people who used all that, including desegregation, as an excuse for bullying and other general hostility, But most of us lived in peace with the long haired or gay people or black/white/brown people or whomever among us. And even with the pockets of violence and acting out here and there, we were not really a divided people.

IMO, it took an angry, judgmental, intolerant, militant, and abusive Progressivism to tear us apart and pit us all against each other. And yes, I am angry about that.

Foxy,

I read this post early this morning and I've been thinking about it ever since. I wonder if you appreciate the motivation for the social changes we have been living through these past sixty years. You said the African American upset began with the Watts riots back in 1964. I submit that generations of segregation and lynching and Jim Crow motivated that uprising. People can be subjugated only so long before they too want equal justice under the law. Your assumption sounds as if the Blacks just got too damn uppity for the good of society. I wonder if you could imagine walking a mile or two in their shoes.

The youth in the fifties and sixties rejected the conformity of the post war years. Suddenly materialism, the nuclear family, a car in the garage and a mortgage on a newly built home in the suburbs was not the end all and be all for that generation. Conformity to culture, conformity to occupations, conformity to that lifestyle was seen by many as a dead end. Who wants Mitch Miller when you can have Mick Jagger?

The war in Vietnam was, by all accounts, a meat grinder without redemption. We we not out to defeat Facsism or militaristic Japanese. We were intervening in a civil war whose virtues were described in a failed pronouncement namely the Domino Theory. Opponents saw that a Vietnamese farmer wanted a water buffalo to plow his fields, but not a John Deere tractor made in Iowa.

Many opponents saw their Black counterparts making the sacrifice in the draft, while affluent White college kids could easily get a deferment. That did not strike many as fair.

Gay folks were routinely abused by homophobic policemen. The simple act of being Gay was against the law. Again, people can only be repressed so long. And following the strides made by African Americans and women for equality, homosexual equality was the natural offshoot.

Culturally, that generation made substantial contributions. The art of Andy Warhol, the music of Lennon and McCartney, the literature of Jack Kerouac and J.D. Salinger changed perspectives for ever, and for the better.

As to the resentment factor, I can only make some assumptions. I assume that those resenting the expansion of freedoms and rights to oppressed classes feel that there is only so much freedom to go around. That by leveling the field and extending freedoms to those who have been repressed means that the oppressors have to cede some of their freedom away.

And in a perverse way, they may be correct. They are no longer free to discriminate, to oppress, to repress their fellow American citizens with impunity. They cede the right to course minorities by denying them the vote, rooms in hotels, seats at lunch counters, mortgages and the right to move into the neighborhood of their choosing. Is this the loss of a noble aspect of American life? Should those folks feel put upon because their bigotry can no longer provide cover for their actions?

Freedom is not a zero sum gain. When all Americans are free, our society prospers. When some Americans are repressed, we all suffer the consequence.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am very concerned about the divisions within this country. The rioting, the looting, the destruction of public and private property, the corruption of our media, the indoctrination of our young people, the Nazi like tactics against those who disagree with you, the suppression of free speech.

Over the last 20 or so years, we have become divided by race, sex, age, income, ethnicity, religion, location, political party, et. al.

Does anyone see a way to unite this country? Would we be better off to split the country into two or three nations? Why is it more important for your party to win than your nation?

Watching this is very depressing and I am sure the founders are turning over in their graves over what has become of the USA.

Why must we hate those who worship differently, think differently, live differently? Why do those on the left believe that we must all believe what they believe? (same question for those on the right).

We are at a crossroads, what happens next?

Were you born after 1975? That's when I graduated from high school. I remember a time we were far more divided than today. History is a marvelous thing. It provides perspective.

You may be remembering the Vietnam era which was when violent rioting first became a popular form of protest. But I am older than you, Nosmo, and I don't recall the nation being anywhere near as divided then. With some exceptions, people were much more able to put things into proper perspective in the 60's and 70's. They could appreciate a President not of their party who did something good, were not so quick to automatically condemn or extrapolate into something bad everything somebody on the other side says. We were allowed to disagree peacefully.

I agree, but to a point. There was the America, Love it or leave it crowd too. Those of us with long hair had to watch our backs if not in the right place. Gays had to stay in the closet.

Cultural norms have always been an issue re those who pushed the envelope. Most especially when they do it in a way that is 'in the face' of those who just want to be who they are and live as they choose.

I think it started with civil upheavel in the 1960's--the Watts riots, the terrorism of the Black Panthers movement, etc. along with the dropped out, zoned out, tuned out Hippie generation who eventually morphed into the violent protests of the Vietnam War. A whole generation seemed to dump the values and social norms of the previous generation and replace those values with drugs, obscenity, dishevelment in dress, violence, and hate disguised as 'love not war.'

The 'long hairs' seemed to be the ones participating in the more violent protests, were burning flags and draft cards, and generally being unAmerican in the eyes of most folks. There was push back against that and certainly there were thugs on the other side that enjoyed being violent too.

Most of the young of course were not involved in all that. But enough were to tar all who chose to be different.

And gay people were openly opposed when they chose to get in people's faces and began forming 'gay societies' that, to most folks were engaged in bad and/or risky behavior as AIDS became the new terrible deadly and most feared disease. Militant gay people did 'gay pride' parades or put floats in the 4th of July celebrations or otherwise went public with what most of saw as obscenity, vulgarity, and inappropriateness.

Most gay people did not do that of course, but enough did to tar everybody in the eyes of many.

But even then most folks did not return violence for violence. There were thuggish people who used all that, including desegregation, as an excuse for bullying and other general hostility, But most of us lived in peace with the long haired or gay people or black/white/brown people or whomever among us. And even with the pockets of violence and acting out here and there, we were not really a divided people.

IMO, it took an angry, judgmental, intolerant, militant, and abusive Progressivism to tear us apart and pit us all against each other. And yes, I am angry about that.

Foxy,

I read this post early this morning and I've been thinking about it ever since. I wonder if you appreciate the motivation for the social changes we have been living through these past sixty years. You said the African American upset began with the Watts riots back in 1964. I submit that generations of segregation and lynching and Jim Crow motivated that uprising. People can be subjugated only so long before they too want equal justice under the law. Your assumption sounds as if the Blacks just got too damn uppity for the good of society. I wonder if you could imagine walking a mile or two in their shoes.

The youth in the fifties and sixties rejected the conformity of the post war years. Suddenly materialism, the nuclear family, a car in the garage and a mortgage on a newly built home in the suburbs was not the end all and be all for that generation. Conformity to culture, conformity to occupations, conformity to that lifestyle was seen by many as a dead end. Who wants Mitch Miller when you can have Mick Jagger?

The war in Vietnam was, by all accounts, a meat grinder without redemption. We we not out to defeat Facsism or militaristic Japanese. We were intervening in a civil war whose virtues were described in a failed pronouncement namely the Domino Theory. Opponents saw that a Vietnamese farmer wanted a water buffalo to plow his fields, but not a John Deere tractor made in Iowa.

Many opponents saw their Black counterparts making the sacrifice in the draft, while affluent White college kids could easily get a deferment. That did not strike many as fair.

Gay folks were routinely abused by homophobic policemen. The simple act of being Gay was against the law. Again, people can only be repressed so long. And following the strides made by African Americans and women for equality, homosexual equality was the natural offshoot.

Culturally, that generation made substantial contributions. The art of Andy Warhol, the music of Lennon and McCartney, the literature of Jack Kerouac and J.D. Salinger changed perspectives for ever, and for the better.

As to the resentment factor, I can only make some assumptions. I assume that those resenting the expansion of freedoms and rights to oppressed classes feel that there is only so much freedom to go around. That by leveling the field and extending freedoms to those who have been repressed means that the oppressors have to cede some of their freedom away.

And in a perverse way, they may be correct. They are no longer free to discriminate, to oppress, to repress their fellow American citizens with impunity. They cede the right to course minorities by denying them the vote, rooms in hotels, seats at lunch counters, mortgages and the right to move into the neighborhood of their choosing. Is this the loss of a noble aspect of American life? Should those folks feel put upon because their bigotry can no longer provide cover for their actions?

Freedom is not a zero sum gain. When all Americans are free, our society prospers. When some Americans are repressed, we all suffer the consequence.

For starters, I said nothing about an African American upset beginning anywhere nor did I limit that remark to black people. So if you got that wrong, how much else did you misread of my post?

The problem with Progressivism is that it see the ways to correct wrongs is by committing other wrongs. Instead of requiring liberty and freedom from institutional oppression of some groups, it would take away liberty and impose institutional oppression on others.

And every time it does that it creates more anger, encourages and excuses more violence, etc. Despite what components of it can be commended, Progressivism is the most judgmental, intolerant, and downright hateful ideology this nation has seen in a very long time. And it encourages incivility to an extent I had NEVER witnessed in my lifetime until the last couple of decades.

So yes, I do blame Progressivism for most of the divide between our citizens these days. It is not willing to live and let live, but demands that everybody speak as it speaks, share in its goals and values, and anybody who does not is fair game to be attacked, insulted, belittled, and even deprived of his/her livelihood.

 

[xyz]

Russia and China are asserting themselves in the world. At some point that means Americans have to act as one.

Q. Will we ever be one country again

A. Not as long as you and others like you continue to hate and fear everyone whose ideas challenge your/their own.

Congratulations, you have just summarized liberals in the present.

Weird. So you're gonna off yourself for being a Russian sympathizer or going off to the funny farm?

 

[Flopper]

As long as the two sides share the most basic common golds compromise is possible. Healthy disagreement, and debate leading to compromise is the American way. Without compromise, chaos is the only alternative in a democratic form of government.

How does one compromise with people who are smashing windows, lighting cars on fire, stopping traffic and attacking other people because of their politics? Where is the compromise, only assault half the people you wanted??????

You know quite well, I'm writing about political compromise among political leaders in Washington not rioters in the streets. That diversion won't work.

That may be, but remember that political leaders cater to their voters. Those are the people Democrats have to pander to.

That's ridiculous. Extremist elements are always given more than their share of media attention in street demonstrations which gives the impression that they are the majority. Whether it's anti-Trump demonstration, a Tea Party rallies, gay rights parade, or whatever, extremists do not drive politicians on either side because they constitute a very small percent of the voters.

Yes, a very small percent of the voters, smaller than cross dressers?

It's not just the protesters and rioters, but those voters who support them. Do you think Black Lies Matter is some major voting block of the Democrats? Of course not, but a lot of blacks are behind the movement of killing cops.

You seem to equate protesting with rioting which are not one and the same. There is certainly nothing wrong with supporting a protest. In fact protests are a vital part of democracy. Here are just a few out of hundreds that at the time were condemned as being lead by anarchists, radicals, and criminals but in retrospect were landmark events that changed history for the better.
The Protestant Reformation
The Storming of the Bastille,
Gandhi's Salt March
The Boston Tea Party
South Africa's National Day of Protest
The 1963 March on Washington
Tiananmen Square
Berlin Wall Protests