Meeting America: The Deep Political Divide

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Government wants us divided. Period.

It is in their best interests if we remain polarized.

What we need to do is isolate those divisive issues that do separate us, come to a consensus, and bypass government all together.

a reply to: beezzer

Don't you think its the media that is dividing us? If politicians from both sides of the isle try to compromised are they not attacked or labeled in the news? Media relies on sensationalism, ideology to make money and the more they push one side of the argument, frankly it sells. Even if it isn't the truth.

Example: Iraq under Saddam hated and actively fought successfully against known terrorist groups but how many Fox viewers think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Is Iraq a haven for terrorists today?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Government wants us divided. Period.

It is in their best interests if we remain polarized.

What we need to do is isolate those divisive issues that do separate us, come to a consensus, and bypass government all together.

Exactly, by dividing us, they create special interest groups who think they need government to do things for them. Government is creating work for itself and need for its own existence. If the gays think they need government for "protection" and "rights," if the Hispanics think they need government to obtain "citizenship," if the poor think they need government for any kind of living, etc., then politicians have an easy way to make promises and buy votes with them, and all those different groups are busy competing for favor with money in return.

Again, take the power out of the system.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: beezzer

Don't you think its the media that is dividing us? If politicians from both sides of the isle try to compromised are they not attacked or labeled in the news? Media relies on sensationalism, ideology to make money and the more they push one side of the argument, frankly it sells. Even if it isn't the truth.

Example: Iraq under Saddam hated and actively fought successfully against known terrorist groups but how many Fox viewers think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Is Iraq a haven for terrorists today?

Looks at ISIS spreading across Iraq. Maybe you want to rethink that question. Maybe ISIS isn't a direct threat to us, but I would call what they are doing terrorist in nature - beheadings, crucifixions, burying people alive, etc. - if those aren't terror tactics I don't what you would think of as terrorism.

a reply to: ketsuko

Iraq is a hot bed for terrorists today but was it before we destroyed there country?

We destabilized the area because saddam ruled the three areas of Iraq with a iron fist, after we destroyed them we gave them a government that did the same thing, and now look at what has happened.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: ketsuko

Iraq is a hot bed for terrorists today but was it before we destroyed there country?

We destabilized the area because saddam ruled the three areas of Iraq with a iron fist, after we destroyed them we gave them a government that did the same thing, and now look at what has happened.

How is that consistent? If Saddam's Iraq wasn't a hotbed for terrorists because he ruled it with an iron fist, why does it suddenly become one when Saddam's government is replaced by one that also rules with an iron fist?

a reply to: ketsuko

You believe what you believe because of media?

Before Iraq invasion= no terrorists

After we invaded= massive terrorists

a reply to: sheepslayer247

It's called the Obama Hunger Games effect. People are effected by the leaders. If leaders are divisive then the people will be too. If they have a united message like Reagan then we can all work together.

Rand and C Booker showed how both sides can work together. But then when the left start calling anyone who disagrees as racists then the divisiveness will start to begin.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Leave my guns alone and we can talk about anything else.

This is unfortunately the 1 thing they cannot do.........They will only ever be able to be happy after they dictate every action of your life, and punish every single person they see fit reguardless if they deserved it or not.

Lets be honest here dems dont respect the rule of law unless they like it.

originally posted by: METACOMET
American politics.

The desire to plan the lives of others and to obtain a monopoly of force necessary to impose that plan on unwilling subjects.

That does just about sum it up right there.

Sorry, sad, tired.......that is what this model is.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Well let's take a closer look at something.

"Bush" and "Republicans" had the unemployment rate down to 4.4% in 2006.

The "Middle Class" was flourishing even with war and the 9/11 devastation.

Then "Democrats" took over the Senate and House starting in Jan 2007.

Then everything fell down.

What was being done "right" and "wrong" ??

What made it all fail ?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: ketsuko

You believe what you believe because of media?

Before Iraq invasion= no terrorists

After we invaded= massive terrorists

I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your own words. If the iron-fisted government prior to our intervention led to no terrorists, then why would an iron-fisted government afterward suddenly lead to terrorists?

Are you the media now, too?

you can only praise the differences in people so long before conflict begins...

we have stopped looking for what we have in common and the result is a divide.

Divisiveness on a thread about divisiveness.

Oh the irony!

May I offer a suggestion?

We all pick 3 items that are "divisive" in nature.

We gather a consensus on those items, address and see if we can find a compromise as referenced by the OP.


What do you all think?

a reply to: xuenchen

You obviously missed the point of the OP and it's that sort of talk that is part of the problem.

EDIT: This post isn't likely to close the divide, but this is how I see things. I am a 'leave me be' kind of guy, otherwise I don't think I would even follow national politics much less be vocal about it.

A day at the beach, with R's and D's:

Group A wants to make sure no one gets hurt, physically or emotionally. To enforce strict minimums for solar protection and flotation devices. To increase the admission fee in order to pay for security patrols, and post a sign proclaiming that all containers are subject to search. To ban anything with an edge, weighing over 3lbs, or remotely resembling a gun. To ban all watercraft, citing the risk of injury and water pollution. To increase admission fees even more, so that anyone who forgot their wallet can be allowed in without breaking the budget. To assign seating areas on the beach, and designate half of the shoreline as a protected wildlife zone (although most of the wildlife is concentrated miles down the coast in less populated areas). To increase admission fees yet again in order to pave an access road for emergency vehicles and for the construction vehicles which must regularly repair the road paved over sand. To increase admission fees one last time, to pay for socialized beach gear, though the umbrellas have holes in them and the chairs fall apart.

Group B just wants to enjoy the day. To be free to wear wings, sunscreen, and a lifejacket (or not). To responsibly carry a speargun, just in case they need to protect themselves or another from sharks. To parasail, SCUBA dive, go fishing, or jet-skiing on their own dime, and accept all accompanying risks. To pay admission fees only for themselves and their family. To set up chairs where they choose, and not be maligned for having nice things or taking up more space. To kick out the guy dumping trash on the beach, but not the guy who starts a small campfire.

a reply to: xuenchen

You blame obama on the economy and basically everything else in the world so why wouldn't bush be blamed for the economy when he was in charge? good and bad, You will credit a good economy under bush but not the crash under bush?

Why does wall street do better under democrat presidents?
Why has most stock market crashes happen under republican presidents?
Why hasn't our economy skyrocketed in the last 40 years when 3 separate republican presidents have given tax breaks for the rich? Why has the middle class shrank and or stagnated after all these tax breaks?

originally posted by: beezzer
Divisiveness on a thread about divisiveness.

Oh the irony!

May I offer a suggestion?

We all pick 3 items that are "divisive" in nature.

We gather a consensus on those items, address and see if we can find a compromise as referenced by the OP.


What do you all think?

ok Ill play

Immigration:

I support letting the kids stay, be educated here in the states and allow them to grow up here. This is a win win for us. 1 They will grow up here and be educated, they will be Americanized socially so if they move back to there original country they will take American values and training with them and should be able to improve conditions in there country win win. 2 They stay here and become a productive member of our society and will contribute with a lifetime of taxes.

I support GWB immigrant worker program, but I would allow individual states to determine wages and how many can participate.

a reply to: LDragonFire

How do we satisfy the rule of law?

How do we insure that the criminal element doesn't get involved?

How do we insure this isn't a drain on our resources?

a reply to: beezzer

There are criminal elements in all human populations including christian or republican, its a fact of life and unavoidable, unless you can show evidence of any human group where no crime exists.

I can't see 50k kids a year being that much of a drain on resources, but It would be money well spent, you have to invest in the future to see a return.

Edit: Ending the war on drugs would also save us $50 billion a year and if we taxed a certain weed would also cripple the drug cartels that are destroying our southern neighbors again a win win for us and them.