It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America Needs Room for Agreement

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

Any common ground around corruption, reform, or enforcing the law will quickly be divided by injecting "social issues" into the various camps. Any common interests will be overwhelmed immediately by those divisions. That is why the GOP infiltrated the Reform Party and the TEA Party while the Leftest demonized them and vice versa with the Green and Occupy movements.


I know exactly what you mean about "social issues" being injected, which are basically special interests looking for special privileges, but we have to stop playing into it, and it has to be both sides. No more "protected" classes. We all have the same rights and needs -- no one needs or deserves more or less protection than anyone else.

I will use the gay marriage issue as an example again... no one has the right to deny others the right to marry, no one has the right to demand others make them a cake. As long as we can marry who we choose, as long as we have the same rights and protections of and by government under the law, that's all we have the right to ask or expect...




posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
America Needs Room for Agreement


Dana Perino, former White House press secretary for President George W. Bush and co-host of the Fox News Channels "The Five," makes a plea for civility in her book "And the Good News Is ..."

Shes worried that "Weve gone from being the confident leader of the free world to bickering about every living thing under the sun." Perino is not against arguing, mind you.

"(B)eing civil means that we can argue vehemently and then either find some compromise, call it a tie or move onto something else," she writes.


Or do we just want to fight? Call names? Mock? Ridicule? Point fingers? Hate? Or, worst of all, use the full force of government to impose the will of some on the many at the point of a gun? Because that's pretty much what I see -- here at ATS and everywhere. We are stagnating in anger and fear and self-righteousness as people suffer and the world crumbles around us. Even when people try to take a principled stand or to reach out to the other side, the people and efforts are vilified and renounced. Examples abound:'

Gay Panic: Jenner, Rubio, Cruz Shock Parochial Mainstream Media

More blowback for gay businessmen who hosted Ted Cruz

A Student Wanted A Conversation On Religious Freedom; She Got A Petition Against Her Instead

‘Why is he so mad?’ Writer for Conan O’Brien dares GOP to invite Bruce Jenner to convention

Whites Excluded From ‘Black Lives Matter’ Forum On Angelo West Shooting

I am well aware that the PTB thrive when the people are too busy fighting amongst themselves to fight them... I am also well aware that there are those -- call them shills, trolls, paid operatives, whatever -- who knowingly and deliberately instigate and perpetuate this in-fighting amongst the people for their own agendas and personal gain. But it also seems that the people are quite willing to play the same game... or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that too many people are willing to be played. "Occupy" and the "Tea Party" had much in common; if they had found their common ground -- corrupt politicians and government -- and worked together to establish common principles both could work and fight for, they could have been a force to be reckoned with. Instead, they allowed themselves to be hijacked and their messages co-opted by the extremes in both partisan camps.

I understand that finding and understanding the root cause of any problem is necessary to finding and understanding the solutions. But at some point, we must move beyond the blame game to talking and discussing and working together... unless, of course, the end game is to simply impose one's will on another, in which case enough said.

Is that where we're at? Is that what we want? If not -- and it's certainly not what I want, nor is that in any way in keeping with natural law and our Constitution -- we need to find ways to do better. How?

Do we want to do better? Or are we changing our organic law to W


Sorry, I recapped the whole post of yours. Hard to edit on mobile device.
Anyway,
Me thinks it all comes down to western mentality, which is based and deeply rooted on colonial mentality. expansionism to enrich one self, to prosper individually is driving force, IMO.

This mentality, this day and age, is so obsolete, old fashion. Us, people of today, already erasing the borders, nationality, race and what not to do best for humanity to ensure tomorrow. Benign thinking, ssacrificing of one for many,

Said that, US of A with its resources could truly become world leader. It is that mentality of enriching one self, conquer, subdue, dominate, dictate, extract profit that leads to now where only more wars and deaths.

But how beautiful cooperative world could be? No end to possibilities.



DO.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm sorry, but that idea is contradictory. I want to drive at 150 and everyone else wants to drive at 30. Sure, that's gonna work. Half wants to drive on the left side the other the right.

You 'want' is what I wanted as a 16 year old that thought I was the center of the universe. It's selfish in the extreme..."

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, probably because I'm not sure what you're responding to either. So I apologize if my answer is totally off target.

If you want to drive 150, okay, be a race car driver... or go to Germany and drive the autobahn. But if you want to use the public highways and byways here, you will have to respect a rule of order for the greater good. For those who want to drive 30, they can use the surface streets and stay off the freeways. Most adults realize that no one gets everything they want... the wise also prioritize their wants... and the wisest understand that sometimes the greater good is preferable to personal gain.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The problem is that no-one wants to be wrong anymore.

And no-one wants to admit they were wrong.

Everything is compromise so there are no winners and losers.

There has to be winners and losers.

There is never going to be everyone that is happy with an outcome of a decision.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

What you said was I want to do what I want, everyone can do what they want and no one tells anyone
else what to do. (paraphrased).

Yet you tell me to buy a race car or got to the Autobahn.

Your original comment lacked any qualifier that you now assume most adults know. I was pointing out that it was an incomplete comment.

There are always rules. Everyone doesn't get to do everything they want. Then why post it??

There is plenty of agreement out there. Generally in two camps. Plenty of agreement to disagree as well.


The point of contention is who defines that "greater good"? I do not agree with marriage being redefined. Civil unions that have equal rights as marriage was my line. They are not equal to man and woman marriages. One continues the race the other is an indulgence.

You disagree with that. I understand that. I should change my mine in the name of 'agreement'? I don't think so. I willingly support those that follow traditional values and point out the flaws of redefining our society.

It's time the other side did some agreement for a change. From what I can see, it's been the right that has been doing the all adjustments.

I'm perfectly willing to 'fight' for those values. In my mind they are far more valuable than 'agreement'...




edit on 26-4-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Boadicea

I should change my mind in the name of 'agreement'? I don't think so. I willingly support those that follow traditional values and point out the flaws of redefining our society.

It's time the other side did some agreement for a change. From what I can see, it's been the right that has been doing the all adjustments.

I'm perfectly willing to 'fight' for those values. In my mind they are far more valuable than 'agreement'...





Well said! There are some things in life that you cannot compromise on.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
How does anyone successfully compromise on a moral issue?



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: darkorange


Said that, US of A with its resources could truly become world leader. It is that mentality of enriching one self, conquer, subdue, dominate, dictate, extract profit that leads to now where only more wars and deaths.

But how beautiful cooperative world could be? No end to possibilities.


Thank you! If only everyone saw the potential you see...

Your words remind me of my parents, who grew up during the Depression in the 1930s. My father was a city boy, my grandmother a widow, and they suffered the full brunt of the Depression. My mother was a country girl whose family bartered with other farmers for what they could not provide for themselves, and she never knew the hardships of growing up in the Depression. When people are able to put aside differences, respect each other and our differences, but still work together for the common good, we can accomplish anything. There is strength in numbers.

There is also strength and innovation in individuality. We have to find ways to protect and promote both.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Boadicea

The problem is that no-one wants to be wrong anymore.

And no-one wants to admit they were wrong.


That may always be a problem to some extent... just part of human nature. But I think some may be due to the level of discourse and national dialogue. Everything is one extreme or another, either this or that, always a victim and an abuser, someone's right and someone is wrong.... We forget that good people can disagree, and sometimes both be right. Perhaps we could change some of that by understanding different people and positions and preferences can co-exist peacefully and respectfully. There are very few times when I cannot see some virtue in any/every position taken by others. And in the end, one-size seldom fits all anyway. It benefits us all to live and let live.... and to learn from each other along the way.


Everything is compromise so there are no winners and losers.

There has to be winners and losers.


I still believe that I'm a winner -- and we're all winners -- when we have the freedom to make our own choices and do what is best for us. Perhaps we need to reconsider and re-evaluate what exactly constitutes winners and losers at the public level -- and all levels.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I agree our society is completely and utterly divided at this moment. The entire country has their head in the clouds thinking their point of view is superior to another



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Boadicea

What you said was I want to do what I want, everyone can do what they want and no one tells anyone
else what to do. (paraphrased).

Yet you tell me to buy a race car or got to the Autobahn.


Okay... I'm still rather confused. You said what you wanted to do... I gave options by which you could safely do that... Options for everyone to do what they want. Am I wrong to assume that you want people to be safe more than you want to drive 150 mph?


Your original comment lacked any qualifier that you now assume most adults know. I was pointing out that it was an incomplete comment.


You're right. I did think that we all understood there are limits and qualifiers to everything we want to do.


I do not agree with marriage being redefined. Civil unions that have equal rights as marriage was my line. They are not equal to man and woman marriages. One continues the race the other is an indulgence.


You do not have to redefine marriage for yourself, obviously. But neither do you have the right to stop anyone else from defining it as they choose. Even more to the point, no one needs you or anyone else to stand before God, friends or absolutely no one, and pledge their love and commitment to each other.... therefore, everyone has the natural inalienable right to do so. If the government is going to entitle some married folks with special rights and privileges, those must be granted to all. Call it a civil union if that makes people feel better about it, as long as the laws are applied equally and all receive due process.


You disagree with that.


I disagree with what?


I should change my mine in the name of 'agreement'? I don't think so. I willingly support those that follow traditional values and point out the flaws of redefining our society.


I wouldn't ask you to change your mind about anything in the name of agreement. I would never ask you to change your mind about anything in regards to the choices you make for yourself. I would never ask you to change your values, nor deny your right to express yourself, worship according to your conscience, and freely associate with who you choose. I would however ask you to change your mind about imposing your will on others under color of law.


It's time the other side did some agreement for a change. From what I can see, it's been the right that has been doing the all adjustments.


Okay. Fair enough. Do I understand correctly, that you do accept a civil union under law, while reserving marriage to a religious context? I would consider that a compromise or concession from the "right"... what would you want/ask for from the "left?" How about the right of persons to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings, etc.?


I'm perfectly willing to 'fight' for those values. In my mind they are far more valuable than 'agreement'...


Fight for your right to live your values? Or fight to impose your values on others?

ETA: I know the formatting is wrong, but I can't figure out where it's wrong and how to fix it. I hope you can make sense of it. My apologies.

edit on 26-4-2015 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
How does anyone successfully compromise on a moral issue?


How does one define moral? You may consider gay marriage immoral; but is it any more moral to force your will on others? Even God does not compel, but granted us free will.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
People are more invested in the fight, than in the original purpose of the debate. (Speaking of this phenomenon in general terms, not referring to anyone or any topic of debate herein specifically.)

People are more invested in their side winning, than in the common good.

People are more invested in their own ego, than in listening to what the other person is actually saying. Let alone attempting to see from their point of view or empathize with them.

I have observed in recent years that often the more combative, hostile debater will receive responses, while the conciliatory or at least civil debater will be entirely ignored, no matter how well reasoned or supported their arguments. The only explanation for this I can fathom is that people care more about the fight than the subject matter.

It is indeed a scary dynamic which has taken on a life of its own, largely without people even being fully conscious of it in my opinion.

Peace.
edit on 4/27/2015 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes there are limits and qualifiers in society.

You seem to need to change them. I do not.

You quote inalienable rights to love and commit to. I agree. I love my family, my daughter and grandchildren. I do not translate that into bedding them...or marrying them.

A key omission-again- on your part from your statement of inalienable rights. I do not consider those to be inalienable whatsoever.

Did I support civil unions? Not the right description. More along the lines of tolerated/kept my mouth shut on the subject.
The continued stress on society, even after the marriage concession, has proved my tolerance to have been the wrong action on my part. There is no end to it.

Now we have three guys, somewhere in Asia, that 'wed'. We have an 18 year old girl who reconnected with her estranged father in N.Y. state that are moving to Jersey-no incest laws- with the intent to marry....

From what I can see what is commonly described as 'redefining' is actually 'undefining'.

No limits, no lines. No restrictions.... As I pointed out, and you say you assumed, is there needs to be limits and restrictions. If there is none, then obviously the is chaos.

The gay Nazis are pushing past the tolerance level of the VERY tolerant Christian/right community. (I'm not a Christian.)

Tolerance has actually gotten us this mess. (The 'us' I refer to is those that didn't really support this direction.)

Tolerance given to those that wish to indulge their impulses generally suffer from more push to indulge even more impulses...ask any parent..


Now we have the 'poor' trans-genders 'trapped in the wrong body. Facebook apparently has somewhere around 50 different descriptions under the category of gender. Not male or female...around 50!

So I say no more tolerance. No more compromise. Get out of my face.

This issue is merely symptomatic, a small part of our mess. I do not think it is fixable. The federal gov't is the enforcement mechanism-either direction-and needs curtailment if not outright removal.

Dissolve this union. Let the states whose majority want the right to marry billy-goats do so. All the more power to you. Just stay out of those states that 'prefer' our original moral system.

A pox on your 'tolerance and compromise". I, for one, am done with it.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, I've seen this belief (for want of a better word). I do not understand it. In an idealistic world, this could and would happen... but we live in the real world. It is not legislation that makes a better world, it is better people, free to be the best they can be. Legislation can ( and inevitably does ) work against us more often than for us.

Making government bigger and stronger only works against us. But making people better and stronger benefits everyone.


Well said.

I think if there is to be any 'compromise', it necessarily must come from the statists (Democrats and Republicans alike). I really do have friends who are Democrats and some of them will even entertain as a thought experiment the concept of individualism but, in most cases, the conclusions are immediately discarded as philosophical folly.

The economic argument for freedom is even stronger but, the inability to attribute the phenomenon of captured markets as a direct function of regulation itself, the evidence for which is overwhelming, is the problem. It is not disciplined ratiocination that is likely surmount that intellectual blockade.

The compromise must be on the side of the closed minded, it cannot be that the open minded must become less so.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

-Ronald Reagan
edit on 27-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Boadicea
"Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot."
-Ayn Rand


Thank you so much for that quote. It's bloody brilliant. I hadn't credited Rand with that much insight. Debate and compromise left politics some time ago, I wonder if it even existed in my lifetime. Our 2 party system might once have had a chance of working if compromise were the operating principle but the only thing close to compromise is all done in back room deals behind closed doors, leaving the public out of the loop and the process.


Yeah, I hadn't given her the time of day until recently having been focused almost exclusively on economics.

I still haven't read her fiction but, what I have found of her commentary is compelling.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
How does anyone successfully compromise on a moral issue?


Precisely, this is the primary function of moral relativism, to create the previously non-existent possibility of compromise of one's principals.

compromise

noun com·pro·mise \ˈkäm-prə-ˌmīz\

: a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute
: something that combines the qualities of two different things
: a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason


Full Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a :  settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

b :  something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
:  a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes there are limits and qualifiers in society.

You seem to need to change them. I do not.


Obviously, our limits and qualifiers are quite different. I do not have to change my limits and qualifiers. If you say, "I want to drive 150 mph," and I say, "Okay, but that can be dangerous for people around you, so you can't do it on my little residential street, but you can do it at the race car track and on the autobahn," then my limits and qualifiers are the safety of the people around you... is that the limit and qualifier you don't like? Do you just want to drive 150 mph regardless of who gets hurt in the process? Or do you want to drive 150 mph AND do it in a way that doesn't harm and kill others?


You quote inalienable rights to love and commit to. I agree. I love my family, my daughter and grandchildren. I do not translate that into bedding them...or marrying them.

A key omission-again- on your part from your statement of inalienable rights. I do not consider those to be inalienable whatsoever.


An inalienable right is endowed by our Creator, however one defines "Creator," and includes anything and everything that we can do for ourselves by ourselves, without bringing harm to anyone else. This is the heart and soul of our Constitutional rights. So, yes, we do have an inalienable right to "marry" -- i.e., to commit our love, our lives, and our selves -- to anyone willing to do the same. In the case of incest, any offspring will be damaged, and therefore it does in fact harm others, so it is not an inalienable right.


Did I support civil unions? Not the right description. More along the lines of tolerated/kept my mouth shut on the subject.
The continued stress on society, even after the marriage concession, has proved my tolerance to have been the wrong action on my part. There is no end to it.


Yes, indeed, tolerance is the wrong action. If you must "tolerate" others exercising their inalienable rights, then your issues are with the Constitution and natural law and the very heart and soul of our nation. Of course there will be no end to it, because you cannot control what others do. I do not have to "tolerate" gay marriage because I have no right or reasonable expectation to tell others what to do. I can, however, easily respect everyone's right to live their own lives.

I would also suggest that this idea that you can force others to do your will (no gay marriage!) set the precedent for them to believe they can force still others (bakers and photographers and florists, etc) to do their will.


Now we have three guys, somewhere in Asia, that 'wed'.


And that hurts you how?


We have an 18 year old girl who reconnected with her estranged father in N.Y. state that are moving to Jersey-no incest laws- with the intent to marry....


And, possibly, produce children that will be harmed... It seems to me that this father and daughter both have serious mental/emotional issues as well. Definite concerns here which have nothing to do with gay marriage.


From what I can see what is commonly described as 'redefining' is actually 'undefining'.

No limits, no lines. No restrictions.... As I pointed out, and you say you assumed, is there needs to be limits and restrictions. If there is none, then obviously the is chaos.


My limits, lines and restrictions are natural law and the Constitution. I have been very specific and very clear on where I find the authority for gay marriage. Where do you find the authority for your position?


The gay Nazis are pushing past the tolerance level of the VERY tolerant Christian/right community. (I'm not a Christian.)

Tolerance has actually gotten us this mess.


Just as the DOMA Nazies FIRST pushed past the tolerance level of the VERY repressed gay community using the color of law to impose their will on them. It wasn't tolerance that brought made this mess.


This issue is merely symptomatic, a small part of our mess. I do not think it is fixable. The federal gov't is the enforcement mechanism-either direction-and needs curtailment if not outright removal.

Dissolve this union. Let the states whose majority want the right to marry billy-goats do so. All the more power to you. Just stay out of those states that 'prefer' our original moral system.


And here is the real issue -- again. Your problem is with the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed therein. It's not about your "tolerance" or lack thereof; it is about your profound disrespect and intolerance for freedom, the Constitution, and the law. It seems you are trying to fundamentally transform America and all that makes her great.


A pox on your 'tolerance and compromise". I, for one, am done with it.


Good luck with that. But, you see, I do have a deep respect and profound gratitude for our Constitution and the powerful principles this nation was founded upon... including your rights. So while you fight against the rights of some, and therefore the rights of all, I will continue to fight for your rights along with mine and everyone else's.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

The economic argument for freedom is even stronger but, the inability to attribute the phenomenon of captured markets as a direct function of regulation itself, the evidence for which is overwhelming, is the problem.


I like how you put that. Regulations, like laws, should only serve to protect our rights -- to property, to person, etc. -- nothing more and nothing less. Consequently, laws and regulations should be minimal... like government.


The compromise must be on the side of the closed minded, it cannot be that the open minded must become less so.


This is becoming more and more clear to me... and I confess I didn't see it for too long, although I should have. So simple and so obvious. I don't know why it took me so long! We cannot do better if we cannot do different.

edit on 27-4-2015 by Boadicea because: clarity




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join