How Can We Have Civil Conversations With The Other Side?

I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

All I've ever done on this site is verbally defend it.


Now think on that to everyone who's ever disagreed with me.


All I'll ever do is protect, defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Eff it. George Carlin is right. It's never going to change.

George carlin died with a net worth of $10 million.
He did pretty good in a country that was screwing everyone.

a reply to: ketsuko

No, we listen.

You say you do, but you don't. Because you stereotype. That part of the OP point.

We may have, but your circumstances are unique. You have it harder than anyone else in history ever has or ever will.

I don't have it hard. But I stand up for people that do. And the government doesn't help me, I do for myself. But thanks for playing.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I read it at your suggestion, but didn't dig in further to see if those characterizations are actually true.

On the face of that interview, much of it sounds true and reasonable... That is until you remember he's the guy who called the Republican Party the most dangerous organization 'in human history'.

Not the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge regime, or Mao's cultural revolution.

So I wonder why I should bother to expend any energy deciding whether anything else he says about history or human governance is true and worth listening to?

a reply to: Liquesence

But that's often essentially what it amounts to.

Oh, these people have it hard, so it's your job to make it better for them without regard to what our problems are.

Everyone's life is hard, and when you make everyone else's difficulties ours, you make our lives that much harder. How much of the US population do we already support in heavy degree, and at what point do we stop? How many people end up needing to be supported every time you expand these programs because the government takes without regard to anything except their need?

You never listen anymore than anyone else doesn't and you get told this over and over. We can only feed so many who do nothing but eat. At what point is the cutoff for those who are unable, truly unable?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

All I've ever done on this site is verbally defend it.


Now think on that to everyone who's ever disagreed with me.


All I'll ever do is protect, defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

You defend a lot of things, and I agree with you on a lot of things. I have said.

But the *second* you categorize the left and democrats and antifa as all the same and condemn and demonize them all in your broad brush as being the same, your *oath*, as you call it, is BS because WE are also America.

Just like you.

Defend us for differing points of view or FO.

If you're honest.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

All I've ever done on this site is verbally defend it.


Now think on that to everyone who's ever disagreed with me.


All I'll ever do is protect, defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

You defend a lot of things, and I agree with you on a lot of things. I have said.

But the *second* you categorize the left and democrats and antifa as all the same and condemn and demonize them all in your broad brush as being the same, your *oath*, as you call it, is BS because WE are also America.

Just like you.

Defend us for differing points of view or FO.

If you're honest.

He is being honest, though.

He, like I, swore an oath.

He can't defend your point of view (nor can I) because it happens to be a view that is against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Don't you get that?

a reply to: Liquesence


Then Antifa and democrats (redundant) should have no problem with the 1st Amendment.


Right?

I just want to add, I am against labeling Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization because of the 1st Amendment.

My posts will stand on their own merit.

a reply to: Lumenari

Thank you.

We swore an oath.

And we take it seriously.



Little sister.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: dfnj2015

I read it at your suggestion, but didn't dig in further to see if those characterizations are actually true.

On the face of that interview, much of it sounds true and reasonable... That is until you remember he's the guy who called the Republican Party the most dangerous organization 'in human history'.

Not the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge regime, or Mao's cultural revolution.

So I wonder why I should bother to expend any energy deciding whether anything else he says about history or human governance is true and worth listening to?

That's Noam Chomsky if I remember correctly.
He was a big fan of Hugo Chavez.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yes on both counts.

Rolling my eyes that anyone thinks this guy calls them right.

originally posted by: loam
I'm old enough to remember a time when 'agreeing to disagree' was a distinct American value... I also remember when 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me' was a staple on the American playground.

Today, both are heresy.

It's gonna take some significant time to get back to those values. Until then, good luck. It's only going to get worse, imo.

I also remember the days when even the politicians said we can agree to disagree and yet still find room to reach common sense decisions that meet the middle of the fence for both sides and further what's best for the country and the people as a whole. Until we can reach deep inside and pull those sensibilities back into not only our dialogue but our decisions then we are stuck in the mud. The political correctness that has taken root in the last decade is part of our inability to see the common ground we share, as it has become the mud we are mired in with everything deemed offensive and only dividing our unique culture we share further apart.

a reply to: Liquesence

Private companies can do whatever they want. It's not a first amendment issue because it's not government doing it. 

It is when those "private" companies want the legal protections afforded utilities.

Are You Tube, Twitter ect content providers or just a delivery service? Hell, even Elizabeth Warren is gunning for them.

What about publically funded colleges preventing speakers on campus? Surely they aren't private companies?

Glad to know that you are in favor of certain people restricting 1st amendment rights. Which people are that?

The consolidation of Executive Powers has been going on pretty much since Reagan from every Single Admin. Did you forget? EO's have been used for some pretty big things in the past.

Ignoring subpoenas, killing lawful investigations?
Hello? Eric Holder is calling among others for both Republican and Democratic Admins.

Stacking judges? The Democrats sure picked a ton of conservative Constitutionalists, didn't they? That's kinda what the Party in Power does, stack the proverbial deck in their favor. Shocking to hear, I know.

I thought you at least had a good talking point. Both parties are just as dirty with all of those things.

I'm surprised you didn't include gerrymandering. The Democrats never do that either, right?

So how do we move together forward when we can't win a three legged race by timing our steps right?

a reply to: DJMSN

Pretty much. We are headed toward difficult times, imo.

Sad

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari

Thank you.

We swore an oath.

And we take it seriously.

Little sister.

Needed said and I've got your back, be it some verbal silliness on here or a firefight.

Bigger brother...



ETA... my pumps are off limits!!!!!

originally posted by: DanDanDat
www.npr.org...

About Celeste Headlee's TED Talk

Public radio host Celeste Headlee has lots of experience with difficult conversations. She has learned that sometimes the most persuasive tool is to reserve judgement and just listen.

About Celeste Headlee

Celeste Headlee hosts the daily news show On Second Thought from Georgia Public Broadcasting. She has worked in public radio since 1999, as a reporter, correspondent and host. She has spent more than a decade working with NPR and has been a host for Public Radio International since 2008. Headlee has also appeared on CNN, the BBC, PBS, and MSNBC.

Just heard this TED radio hour about how "listening" to what your political opostion has to say is a more effective tool at causing positives change than is demanding it from others.

In my opinion a lot of people in this country need to take this advice, especially our political leaders; I think they might be amazed at what they might learn.

Sorry, I wish their was a transcript.

The problem is the left is void of any facts and logic. Their positions are based on emotion.

To further complicate matters, they don't see opposition as a simple disagreement. They don't want to hear opposing view points hence the censorship push you see at Universities, Tech companies, and media. They justify not listening or giving consideration to opposing view points by dehumanizing those of us that disagree. By accusing any disagreement as racist, sexist, etc they attempt to squash any debate on the actual topic. From their perspective, why debate with a racist?

I regularly see conservatives inviting debate and discussion. You hardly ever see any real debate with leftist that isn't staged or highly scripted.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DanDanDat
www.npr.org...

About Celeste Headlee's TED Talk

Public radio host Celeste Headlee has lots of experience with difficult conversations. She has learned that sometimes the most persuasive tool is to reserve judgement and just listen.

About Celeste Headlee

Celeste Headlee hosts the daily news show On Second Thought from Georgia Public Broadcasting. She has worked in public radio since 1999, as a reporter, correspondent and host. She has spent more than a decade working with NPR and has been a host for Public Radio International since 2008. Headlee has also appeared on CNN, the BBC, PBS, and MSNBC.

Just heard this TED radio hour about how "listening" to what your political opostion has to say is a more effective tool at causing positives change than is demanding it from others.

In my opinion a lot of people in this country need to take this advice, especially our political leaders; I think they might be amazed at what they might learn.

Sorry, I wish their was a transcript.

The problem is the left is void of any facts and logic. Their positions are based on emotion.

To further complicate matters, they don't see opposition as a simple disagreement. They don't want to hear opposing view points hence the censorship push you see at Universities, Tech companies, and media. They justify not listening or giving consideration to opposing view points by dehumanizing those of us that disagree. By accusing any disagreement as racist, sexist, etc they attempt to squash any debate on the actual topic. From their perspective, why debate with a racist?

I regularly see conservatives inviting debate and discussion. You hardly ever see any real debate with leftist that isn't staged or highly scripted.

Quoted for Truth.

How can you "debate" and "meet in the middle" with a group of people that think you're deplorable, irredeemable, sexist, racist, xenophobic and the whole other host of -isms.

You can't.

So eventually you get tired of getting beat up with BS and start to fight back.

Which was the entire reason Trump got elected.

I don't see it getting any better.

a reply to: Lumenari

When your opposition literally defines you as Hitler, they quite logically aquire the moral obligation to 'deal' with you.

This is all going to go way beyond mere 'conversation' imo.

If you oppose a social program, it becomes "Why do you hate poor people? You greedy bastard!" but no one ever said they hated poor people and didn't want to help them. Rather, we actually want to help them, and want to find the best way. We've been doing what we've been doing since LBJ declared war on poverty and none of it has worked very well. We always just have more poor people.

Now, I know it's religious, but Christ said the poor will always be with you, so it stands to reason there will always be poor people. It seems to me that a good program to help the poor would be reducing the numbers of poor people and not simply keeping poor people in their poverty like we do now.

It's like legal immigration. If you oppose simply opening the border, you're a racist who hates brown people. But rather, we want legal immigration to control the numbers of those who come in. Realistically, many will need to be supported before they can stand on their own two feet and become a net fiscal positive to the nation as a whole. If that's what it will be, then we need to measure the amount we have or risk getting swamped by more than we can afford to take in. We help them as we can sustain them or else no one at all gets helped.

I can go on ... but I won't. It's all been said before.