Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Common Ground's Not So Common! >

Common Ground's Not So Common!

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Common Ground's Not So Common!

Old 05-01-2018, 05:37 AM
  #11  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,078
Default

Both parties have a lot of extremism. This site is peopled with conservative extremists while a few liberals chime in from time to time. When you refuse to compromise at all then there is no common ground.
Jenks is offline  
Old 05-01-2018, 05:55 AM
  #12  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 12,401
Default

Nah, liberals chime in when they see they are losing ground. That will continue because the liberals have essentially declared war on the rest of the country.
Oldtimr is online now  
Old 05-01-2018, 06:44 AM
  #13  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default

Originally Posted by Jenks View Post
Both parties have a lot of extremism. This site is peopled with conservative extremists while a few liberals chime in from time to time. When you refuse to compromise at all then there is no common ground.
It really depends on what you are calling "extremism!" If your definition of extremism is standing firm on a set of beliefs, then I think most of us are guilty!
But, That is NOT what extremism is! "Extreme," is magnifying that set of beliefs to the left or the right, to the exclusion of all other views!
That describes the current DEM regime to a tee! Trump has been POTUS for 18 months now and not a day goes by that the left does not try to obstruct a duly elected president from doing his job! Not to mention actually threatening physical harm to those with opposing views!
JagMagMan is offline  
Old 05-01-2018, 07:19 AM
  #14  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,868
Default

Originally Posted by Jenks View Post
Both parties have a lot of extremism. This site is peopled with conservative extremists while a few liberals chime in from time to time. When you refuse to compromise at all then there is no common ground.
ex·trem·ism

noun: the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism


Seems a lit more definitive of DEMs than the GOP. Who is it that is all butt hurt about the results of the last election? Did you see the GOP act this way when OBozo won? Nope, you didn't. They just got down to the business of winning the WH back.
flags is offline  
Old 05-01-2018, 09:04 AM
  #15  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,078
Default

I saw much disrespect of Obama while he was in office and it continues. Calling him "Obozo" is an example. I did not approve of many of his actions while Pres. but I think continued personal disrespect is unnecessary.
Jenks is offline  
Old 05-01-2018, 09:48 AM
  #16  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,790
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
The only hope is a convention of the states. Too much power has gone to the federal government. Power the framers never intended to have and it was foretold in the federalist papers should both the House and Senate be chosen by the same means.

I encourage you all to learn about what a convention of the states is and what it isn't. It not a rewriting of the constitution. Its amending the constitution just as if Congress voted to amend the constitution. It's a way for the states to take back power the federal government has grabbed like implementing term limits. Like putting in place tying federal budgets to the GDP and keeping it spending within its means. Give the states an opportunity to overturn the SC if enough said no way to things like Obamacare.

We're such a fractured society why? Because decisions are being made at the federal level for the entire country. That's not what a republic is about.

This is probably not the place to debate/discuss a convention of the states. Doing that would likely "hijack" this thread to focus on some topic not intended by the thread's author. Perhaps you are right about a convention of the states not being a rewriting of the constitution. On the other hand, it is amending the constitution and sounds like it could be pretty open ended. What is the practical difference between "rewriting" the constitution and "amending" the constitution? I do not assume "rewriting" the constitution implies throwing out the prevailing constitution and starting from scratch. Maybe what is to the point is that a wide-open amending process is pretty scary to me.


Why scary? We are not led now by men of the calibre of men our founders were. You mention the Federalist Papers. Where are the leaders now who have the breadth and depth of mind of Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay? Maybe yet more pertinent, who are the leaders now who are independent of party interests and who are independent of large money interests? Without saying it, you suggest -- in my opinion, my opinion may be ill-founded -- that the leaders of a convention of the states would inherently be disposed to favour state's rights. Why? The people who now favour centralizing power in the federal governments are also citizens of states, are leaders of states.


How would these leaders from each of the several states be selected? Wouldn't they be selected by popular vote? Were the people who crafted our constitution in the past elected by popular vote -- and who had the suffrage at that time? Even if you look at previous amendments, many of them were passed well before what is now construed as "the popular vote" was fully in play. It wasn't until 1919 tat women had the right to vote in the United States. No, these leaders of the convention of the states will be selected by popular vote, I'm betting my money on that. What pressures would be exerted on these leaders of a convention of the states? Wouldn't the media blitz them with coverage, and wouldn't leaks occur about what secret proceedings are taking place? Or would the proceedings be secret at all?


I'm afraid I'm with Hamlet on this: "better to live with evils we know than fly to others we know not of!"


I see the attraction of what you are looking at. I too would like to see the power of the central government much reduced, and much power currently assumed by the central government returned to the states. You mention keeping spending within government means. I think that is great. In fact, let me pile on with a favourite idea of my own. I would mandate that the federal revenues be partitioned according to a fixed ratio among each of the constitutionally recognized missions of the federal government. Just to give an example -- I'm not sure this the right partitioning -- partition #1: justice system, partition #2: insuring domestic tranquillity, partition #3: national defence, partition #4 promote the general welfare, and partition #5 secure the blessings of liberty. I'm not sure what responsibilities map to each of those, but let them stand for argument's sake. Then distribute 20% of revenues to each partition and do not tolerate any law or motion to redirect any portion belonging to one partition to a different partition. This would stop people who want to take money from the defence budget and put it in the social welfare program budget. Seriously, I think this kind of formal structure would avoid some of our practical problems of politics.

Last edited by Alsatian; 05-01-2018 at 10:18 AM.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 05-01-2018, 11:06 AM
  #17  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 12,401
Default

He tried to give our country away, he bad mouthed the United States all over the world, he bowed to foreign leaders, he encouraged illegal invaders to enter our country illegally and then protected them. He colluded with Hillary to give our nuclear materials to Russia, he was a bold faced traitor. Only a fool would have any respect for him, he demeaned his office and hurt the country and fomented the worst race relations in this country since the 60s. He deserves no respect, he needs to go down in History as the sorriest excuse for a POTUS in the proud history of this country, except for the 8 years that clown was in office.
Oldtimr is online now  
Old 05-01-2018, 12:04 PM
  #18  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,790
Default

Originally Posted by Oldtimr View Post
He tried to give our country away, he bad mouthed the United States all over the world, he bowed to foreign leaders, he encouraged illegal invaders to enter our country illegally and then protected them. He colluded with Hillary to give our nuclear materials to Russia, he was a bold faced traitor. Only a fool would have any respect for him, he demeaned his office and hurt the country and fomented the worst race relations in this country since the 60s. He deserves no respect, he needs to go down in History as the sorriest excuse for a POTUS in the proud history of this country, except for the 8 years that clown was in office.

Don't hold back and sugar-coat your thoughts about the former POTUS, tell us what you really think!


He countenanced weaponizing the federal government against political opponents -- the IRS targeting conservatives for ill treatment, the FBI spying on the political opposition. He neglected security in Libya in view of politics (acknowledging that security in the middle east was on a bad footing would have been harmful to his 2012 presidential campaign) which directly led to the death of our ambassador there. He mandated his administrative lackeys to destroy an industry he personally objected to -- the coal industry.


It will be interesting to see how history treats BHO. Of course, some take the view that the winners write the history books. Thus, if eventually the leftists/progressives/liberals prevail in the end, I guess the history books are going to be replete with praises of BHO. How true this is -- the winners write the history books -- may be indicated by how statues are now being removed all over the place to essentially change history -- to make it as if these men had not existed.


I don't know if I have heard anyone say this before about BHO. It may be that his purposes were fundamentally to weaken and break our country. The Marxists years ago (I'm thinking 1930's) wondered why the class consciousness that was needed to make the success of Communism predicted by Marx had not happened in Western Europe. Some of those Marxists voiced the opinion that Western Europe would never succumb to Marxist class consciousness while the culture of Western Civilization remained strong. Thus, the cultural Marxists commenced destroying Western Civilization in every way they could find. (My ideas on this come from Pat Buchanan in "Death of the West.") So, was BHO deliberately disintegrating all things USA to advance the day that class consciousness prevails and Communism can triumph? It at least would make sense of the BHO track record. You don't bat 1000 without trying very hard to bat well; correspondingly, you don't bat 0000 without trying very hard to bat poorly.


By the way, when I speak of Communism I do not intend to evoke a bogey such as we worried about in the 1950's. That strain of Communism was significantly linked with Soviet Russia as the puppet-master of all communists. Said in other words, Communism then entailed not just a form of economics but a subjection to the control of the Communist Central Committee in Russia. I'm not sure that same element of subjugation is involved, but the economic system remains. Central economic planning; no personal property; wealth shared in common. These elements are, I think, still front and center to contemporary Communism. I'm pretty sure Bernie would support central economic planning and wealth shared in common. The question would be what his attitudes are about personal property -- would Bernie respect personal property?

Last edited by Alsatian; 05-01-2018 at 12:27 PM.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 05-01-2018, 02:38 PM
  #19  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,201
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
This is probably not the place to debate/discuss a convention of the states. Doing that would likely "hijack" this thread to focus on some topic not intended by the thread's author. Perhaps you are right about a convention of the states not being a rewriting of the constitution. On the other hand, it is amending the constitution and sounds like it could be pretty open ended. What is the practical difference between "rewriting" the constitution and "amending" the constitution? I do not assume "rewriting" the constitution implies throwing out the prevailing constitution and starting from scratch. Maybe what is to the point is that a wide-open amending process is pretty scary to me.


Why scary? We are not led now by men of the calibre of men our founders were. You mention the Federalist Papers. Where are the leaders now who have the breadth and depth of mind of Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay? Maybe yet more pertinent, who are the leaders now who are independent of party interests and who are independent of large money interests? Without saying it, you suggest -- in my opinion, my opinion may be ill-founded -- that the leaders of a convention of the states would inherently be disposed to favour state's rights. Why? The people who now favour centralizing power in the federal governments are also citizens of states, are leaders of states.


How would these leaders from each of the several states be selected? Wouldn't they be selected by popular vote? Were the people who crafted our constitution in the past elected by popular vote -- and who had the suffrage at that time? Even if you look at previous amendments, many of them were passed well before what is now construed as "the popular vote" was fully in play. It wasn't until 1919 tat women had the right to vote in the United States. No, these leaders of the convention of the states will be selected by popular vote, I'm betting my money on that. What pressures would be exerted on these leaders of a convention of the states? Wouldn't the media blitz them with coverage, and wouldn't leaks occur about what secret proceedings are taking place? Or would the proceedings be secret at all?


I'm afraid I'm with Hamlet on this: "better to live with evils we know than fly to others we know not of!"


I see the attraction of what you are looking at. I too would like to see the power of the central government much reduced, and much power currently assumed by the central government returned to the states. You mention keeping spending within government means. I think that is great. In fact, let me pile on with a favourite idea of my own. I would mandate that the federal revenues be partitioned according to a fixed ratio among each of the constitutionally recognized missions of the federal government. Just to give an example -- I'm not sure this the right partitioning -- partition #1: justice system, partition #2: insuring domestic tranquillity, partition #3: national defence, partition #4 promote the general welfare, and partition #5 secure the blessings of liberty. I'm not sure what responsibilities map to each of those, but let them stand for argument's sake. Then distribute 20% of revenues to each partition and do not tolerate any law or motion to redirect any portion belonging to one partition to a different partition. This would stop people who want to take money from the defence budget and put it in the social welfare program budget. Seriously, I think this kind of formal structure would avoid some of our practical problems of politics.
Like I said, I recommend you learn about the process.

A Convention of the States is amending the constitution just as the House and Senate would amend the constitution. Only this method, they have zero input. It takes 34 state legislatures to vote for a convention. The legislatures pick who they will send to represent them. Their representatives are directly answerable to the legislatures of the state they come from. They meet to discuss proposed amendments and each state gets one vote, up or down. Any amendment that may come out of the process must be ratified by 38 states just as if the House and Senate passed a new amendment. So there isn't any chance of a run away convention. Its merely a way around waiting for Congress to give up the power they took from the states.
Fieldmouse is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.