political discourse

based on the general agreement i've seen that the rancorous state of political discourse in america is hurting america, i wonder if it is still possible to discuss issues civilly and look for true solutions or if all discussions about politics must descend into one-sided generalizations and the demonization of every viewpoint other than the one being promoted by the side making the post.

i mean, if we are truly to heal the divisions within american political life, shouldn't we start here amongst ourselves? i'm curious if this thread will engender serious responses, no responses or quickly slip into the kind of divisiveness and namecalling that both sides decry as the root of all evil.

rather than pointing fingers and assigning blame, is it possible to have a discussion that looks towards how to solve the problems that we face and encompasses all viewpoints without demeaning those with which you disagree? or have we as a society moved beyond that?

if we have, how can we hope to ever heal the rift?

---

When I was in grad school, we were constantly put on projects and graded on whether we could reach consensus on those projects. I think in today's political discourse, people don't want to work toward consensus.

In my opinion, liberals want things their own way 100% of the time. We in the U.S. use the Constitution as a governing document. Yet the liberals don't seem to understand what it says. They twist it around to mean what they want it to mean. We can't come to agreement with that going on.

---

"Let's not forget that it was liberals and activist judges who took Blacks from slaves and then second class citizens to the equal rights they are entitled to now."

Once again, the liberals have their own version of everything. And that's the problem!

The Republican Party was created because there were no political parties that opposed slavery. It's fact, look it up. Liberals and activist judges were the problem, not the solution.

Read it here

---

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 01:44 PM

Papa, liberals have to stop the bait and switch for honest political discourse to move forward.

They will open up a topic about Blacks and slavery, then when they are confronted with historical truth, will change the subject.

---

Vote for Civil Rights Act of 1964. The numbers don't lie. The Republican vote was 80% or better in favor.

The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Don't let facts stand in the way

---

Exactly. And then after that, the parties slowly began to switch. This is why many Democrats became Republicans and many Republicans became Democrats. This is why there are those who have stayed in their party because of family legacy, but do not agree with that party any longer.

---

Ya know, Sleeper--that is a VERY interesting point. And considering how snide Papa was when Bush was made President again in 2004, it is rather curious how suddenly he wants all of this peace and love and harmony.

But, I will happily give papa those things. I will not give them to Bush and Co.

---

Both parties twist the constitution to serve their purposes. The NRA is perhaps the worst offender, as the right to bear arms was only granted in the context of a well-armed militia and the need for state security.

Provisions of the Patriot Act and the NSA wire taps activities in my opinion violate the clear language of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

Both parties try and to twist, or ignore, those provisions that do not serve their purposes.

The Bill of Rights:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I was just now, really only five minutes ago, thinking about this rift as I was driving back home from Burger King. I'm glad you initiated this thread, papa. I don't have your eloquence or wit and you've introduced this subjectly nicely.

My opinion is with such controversial issues as war and gay marriage is that opinions are so strong and deeply rooted in each others' values is that we can never agree on these two matters.

While watching the President and his wife on CNN, I did my best to believe he had his countrymen's best interests at heart. But listening to him dismiss polls that point to his unpopularity and talk as an elected leader who knows what's best for his countrymen whether they like it or not, I found myself deeply discouraged again. He simply does not care. I think it would be easier for everyone if he even pretended that a point of view other than his own was valid. As it has always been with Bush, he dismisses other viewpoints in his smug, self-contratulatory way. Is it any wonder people are sit on opposite sides of the political fence without thought of compromise when our highest leader does not even acknowledge the concerns of an opposing viewpoint?

And of course, I'm placing blame with Bush here. He is, after all, the man we elected to serve US, rather than serve himself. I personally think he projects a hostility toward opposing viewpoints that is bound to make people on each side dig their heels in and refuse to compromise.

I will also say that there are some issues in which I have no clear answer to solution. For example, I'm clear on the problems of illegal immigration but I'm not so sure of the correct plan of action. So while Bush spoke of patience on issues that I think need resolved immediately, I agree that that perhaps we need to wait for more information and input before a decision is reached that affects so many people that can't speak for themselves.

I really, really want to believe our President is acting on the best interests of our country. But I don't.

So I guess I would be willing to compromise if I felt my concerns were validated by people other than my family, friends, and people on a message board. It's hard to get past the feeling that no one else is listening, so solutions in the form of compromises aren't even in the working stages yet.