A Civil Discourse for the 2012 Presidential Election

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am willing to compromise on that issue, but it is clear that you are not.

Then it's not really a principle, is it? If it can be origami'd into something else then it's not really a value you adhere to.
Just guessing here, but that's my take.




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by beezzer
A place where civility is a name given to the folks that came in second place. It's not give and take.

It's a war. There are winners and losers. The winners get the policies and ask for civility from the folks that didn't win.


And that is exactly why the US is in really big trouble. This attitude of "it's a war". "It's not give and take".

That is the exact problem.


When we have values that we can't adhere to, when we have principles that can be swapped around, then there are much larger problems at stake.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
When we have values that we can't adhere to, when we have principles that can be swapped around, then there are much larger problems at stake.


When being 'right' about our principles is more important than the health of the nation as a whole, then there are much larger problems at stake.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by beezzer
When we have values that we can't adhere to, when we have principles that can be swapped around, then there are much larger problems at stake.


When being 'right' about our principles is more important than the health of the nation as a whole, then there are much larger problems at stake.

So we sacrifice principles for the health of our nation.

Who determines that health?

Which of your principles are you willing to sacrifice?
edit on 23-5-2011 by beezzer because: ksdfiljm;



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Then it's not really a principle, is it? If it can be origami'd into something else then it's not really a value you adhere to.


Yes, it is a principle. I'm not willing to change my personal beliefs about abortion, but I am willing to compromise what I would accept in law, so we can move forward and both get SOME of what we want, even though neither of us may get ALL of what we want. That's what compromise is. Coming together and meeting at a central point.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by beezzer
Then it's not really a principle, is it? If it can be origami'd into something else then it's not really a value you adhere to.


Yes, it is a principle. I'm not willing to change my personal beliefs about abortion, but I am willing to compromise what I would accept in law, so we can move forward and both get SOME of what we want, even though neither of us may get ALL of what we want. That's what compromise is. Coming together and meeting at a central point.


A principle is a foundation for belief. If we, as a society, can't adhere to our principles (no matter how diametrically opposed) then we are in ALOT more trouble than just Obama/dems/republicans/ et al.

I can't, I won't give up my principles. Maybe you see them different than I. But I can't compromise them.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You're just playing word games to get your way and to deny other people's freedom. I've heard it before. Not civil at all. Buh-bye.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Honestly, what is to debate? We live in a land of law, so follow the law - read: the Constitution.

The issue is not that people cannot negotiate and compromise, it is that our "choices" are limited and poor; essentially, every four years we must choose the lesser of the evils.

Certain things should not even be up to debate and others should not matter altogether, and a politician shouldn't have to stop and think when they are asked if they are willing to support and defend the Constitution.

Of the available candidates, Ron Paul is the only sufficient choice because he knows the Constitution and limits the Federal government has - a trait that the majority of Congress and our current President do not hold. Paul has stuck to his guns for decades regarding his libertarian viewpoints, does not flip-flop on issues, and does not sell out; he also does not "compromise" on the principles that he believes in.

President Obama has proven to be a hypocrite and unconstitutional; our very leader disregards the rule of law (read: War Powers Resolution). Anyone who votes for Obama again is also a hypocrite, or secretly should have voted for McCain last time around.


You do not compromise Liberty, you either defend it or your cede it.


  • You want to argue over abortion? Guess what, the Federal government has absolutely no place and no authority to determine if it is illegal or legal. Leave it for the States and keep religious views out of it.

  • Torture is unacceptable, and "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture. In the May 5th debate, only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson said they opposed torture and EIT.

  • Secret prison are unacceptable, and this includes Gitmo, for they subvert habeas corpus and the rule of law.

  • You do not trade liberty for security.

  • Any politician who supports the USA PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security should not hold your respect, for they helped strip away rights granted to you in the Bill of Rights.

  • Preemptive war is an oxymoron, hypocritical, and unconstitutional. The President needs Congressional authority to make an act of war, and only defensive wars are acceptable.

  • Our Constitution and Congress trump NATO and the UN, or any similar entities, no matter what. The President needs to consult Congress, our voice, before any other body.

  • The Federal government has no right to use taxpayer money to bail out any private entity, no matter what.

  • Socialized medicine is unacceptable and unconstitutional; you do not have the "right to medicine".

  • The Federal government has no place in our education system and No Child Left Behind is abhorrent. American school systems need to progress to the levels seen elsewhere in modern countries.

  • The government has no place to infringe on our private property rights.

  • You have the right to buy, carry, and use a gun for hunting or self-defense purposes. You also have the right to use a gun in self-defense against police acting unlawfully (unlawful entry, for example) - this has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

  • Foreign Policy? Stay out of it. We, as a country, have absolutely no right to interfere with a sovereign nation's right to rule itself. We have no right to ignite or cause regime change, to install puppet-leaders, or to "spread democracy".

  • The Federal Reserve needs to go, period - no outside agency has the Constitutional authority to control our monetary system, let alone operate in secrecy. Fiat currency is falling, and quantitative easing only postpones the incoming disaster that is the American dollar.


The list could go on, but I am getting upset as I think about all of the subversions. Twisted political madness has divided the people and only provides an illusion of choice. Liberty is not complicated or confusing.

Your rights and Liberties end only where mine begin, and vice versa. If you are not willing to fight for them, or willing to trade them, you do not deserve to have them.


edit on 5/23/2011 by Konah because: clarification
edit on 5/23/2011 by Konah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Which of your principles are you willing to sacrifice?


Sacrifice? None. Compromise on? I have already given you an explicit, concise example. It is clear to me you are not taking this seriously. Have fun...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer
 


You're just playing word games to get your way and to deny other people's freedom. I've heard it before. Not civil at all. Buh-bye.


I won't deny others freedoms.

But I'll agree that it's not very civil.

Thus my point.
QED



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by beezzer
Which of your principles are you willing to sacrifice?


Sacrifice? None. Compromise on? I have already given you an explicit, concise example. It is clear to me you are not taking this seriously. Have fun...


Again, proving my point. You ask me to sacrifice my principles, but won't do the same.

Civility?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
lol,
I am still in total amazement that some
people here still think they have a vote.
You haven't had a vote since JFK died.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
lol,
I am still in total amazement that some
people here still think they have a vote.
You haven't had a vote since JFK died.

"You may call me a dreamer. . . .
But I'm not the only one. . . . . "



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by boondock-saint
lol,
I am still in total amazement that some
people here still think they have a vote.
You haven't had a vote since JFK died.

"You may call me a dreamer. . . .
But I'm not the only one. . . . . "


you have to change the system first.
Once you do that, you will find a totally
different set of candidates.

Every one of the candidates discussed here
are still attached to the old Matrix.

This is why you still keep getting the same ole same ole
no matter who you vote for.
edit on 5/23/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by boondock-saint
lol,
I am still in total amazement that some
people here still think they have a vote.
You haven't had a vote since JFK died.

"You may call me a dreamer. . . .
But I'm not the only one. . . . . "


you have to change the system first.
Once you do that, you will find a totally
different set of candidates.

Every one of the candidates discussed here
are still attached to the old Matrix.
edit on 5/23/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)


Honest question. How do we change the system without going going the torch and pitchfork route?

We have to do it grassroots, sir. In my humble opinion.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
We have to do it grassroots, sir. In my humble opinion.


Grassroots and protests are met with:

1) Rubber bullets
2) Arrests
3) Tear Gas
4) Military weapons that burn ur skin and hurt your ears
5) Loss of Free Speech

In the last 100 years, how has that Grassroots
been working out for ya ??? Epic Fail

u r a slave to the system Neo

follow the White Rabbit >>>>>>>>>>>>



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I can't give up. Call it a character flaw, an issue with my principles (
) but I'm not ready to throw in the towel.

I believe, that with enough principled people (there's that damned word again) we can turn this country around. We may not see it, but we sure as hell can start the process.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I can't give up. Call it a character flaw, an issue with my principles (
) but I'm not ready to throw in the towel.

I believe, that with enough principled people (there's that damned word again) we can turn this country around. We may not see it, but we sure as hell can start the process.


I may or may not agree with your viewpoints and stances, but I will back this statement with my whole heart.

Once you give up, you accept the consequences that are guaranteed to follow. The only thing more pathetic than the corrupt leaders running our country are the people who idly stand by watching it happen, especially the ones who say "our votes don't count anyways" and do nothing about it.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Konah
 


Thank you, good sir. I can have a better debate with people ironclad in opposition to my viewpoint than with others with a more "organic" position.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything".
-Somebody Important Said It. (Not me)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

I can't give up. Call it a character flaw, an issue with my principles (
) but I'm not ready to throw in the towel.
I believe, that with enough principled people (there's that damned word again) we can turn this country around. We may not see it, but we sure as hell can start the process.


the process you are referring to
was started back in 1913 when
the Fed Res Act was established
on Christmas break while Congress
was at home with their families.
There have been Grassroots and
protests ever since to no avail.

True Freedom comes with a
price tag and ALWAYS is paid
in blood. Or you can ask the
900+ Syrians who have given their
lives in protest against the system.
And the 800+ Egyptians who
gave their life. And the 300+
Bahrainians, and the 500+
Tunisians, and the 200+
Yemenese.

And just how many Americans
died in the Revolutionary War???


When it came to the war and the losses of life, about 7,200 Americans were killed in battle during the Revolutionary War. Approximately 8,200 were wounded. Around 10,000 others died in military camps from disease or exposure. Some 8,500 would die in prison after being captured by the British. American military deaths from all causes during the war adds up to 25,700 people.
In addition, approximately 1,400 soldiers were missing.
British military deaths total about 10,000.


wiki.answers.com...

Freedom is never given.
It is earned





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join