First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jun 16

South Point, OH

#1 Jul 11, 2016
Just wondering in this age of partisan pissing matches if there is anything that everyone can agree upon that needs fixing and a solution for it that can be agreed upon.
I'm racking my brain and honestly I can't think of a thing and that's just sad.
Countryboy

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Jul 12, 2016
Term limits?
Inserting unrelated BS into bills?
asset forfeiture?

Seems to me most people are for pot legalization even if they personally disagree with smoking it.

But idk.... Men can decide to be woman now so i don't have much faith left in common sense or decency anymore. These idiots have flat out said that we shouldn't even have a border let alone defend it....and they fight for the "right" to kill babies.... Common ground is impossible. Somebody needs to wake me when the s*** finially hits the fan

And I'm a guy who considers himself middle of the road.... Even slightly left leaning 8 years ago.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3 Jul 12, 2016
Countryboy wrote:
Term limits?
Inserting unrelated BS into bills?
asset forfeiture?

Seems to me most people are for pot legalization even if they personally disagree with smoking it.

But idk.... Men can decide to be woman now so i don't have much faith left in common sense or decency anymore. These idiots have flat out said that we shouldn't even have a border let alone defend it....and they fight for the "right" to kill babies.... Common ground is impossible. Somebody needs to wake me when the s*** finially hits the fan

And I'm a guy who considers himself middle of the road.... Even slightly left leaning 8 years ago.
Term Limits???

We Already have them, they are called elections.

Oh and you are not middle of the road on many issues. Though I will acknowledge that I have heard you be middle of the road on some social issues.

On the other hand, for example, 70-90% of Americans want gun control measures that you oppose, which kind of makes you an extremist on that issue.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4 Jul 12, 2016
Countryboy wrote:
Term limits?
Inserting unrelated BS into bills?
asset forfeiture?

Seems to me most people are for pot legalization even if they personally disagree with smoking it.

But idk.... Men can decide to be woman now so i don't have much faith left in common sense or decency anymore. These idiots have flat out said that we shouldn't even have a border let alone defend it....and they fight for the "right" to kill babies.... Common ground is impossible. Somebody needs to wake me when the s*** finially hits the fan

And I'm a guy who considers himself middle of the road.... Even slightly left leaning 8 years ago.
And no, liberals are not saying "We shouldn't even have a border much less defend it".

Why do you make such obvious lies?

Isn't that embarrassing?
Countryboy

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Jul 12, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>

Term Limits???

We Already have them, they are called elections.

Oh and you are not middle of the road on many issues. Though I will acknowledge that I have heard you be middle of the road on some social issues.

On the other hand, for example, 70-90% of Americans want gun control measures that you oppose, which kind of makes you an extremist on that issue.
Elections are not term limits by any stretch. It is supposed to be a public service being a politician....not an entire career.

I am very middle of the road. You people have just lost your minds over the past 8 years. I have been described recently, by an old man who is a not insane democrat, that i am a "kennedy democrat"..... I don't really know what that means but ok.... Im not a Republican and i damn sure want nothing to do with the democrat party in 2016

That 90% is just regurgitated BS and you absolutely know it. The sales and increase in permits speak for themselves. The numbers at antigun rallies vs a small town gun show speak for themselves. AR15s flying off the shelves speak for themselves. Politicians getting hammered over antigun positions speak for themselves lol. Please do source your 90% lie..... You just keep claiming "90% want ......" while most states have been LOOSENING gun laws. You will be saying "but but but 90%..." for years to come and NOTHING will change. You will blame the "evil" NRA but disregard the fact that the NRA represents millions of Americans. You are simply incorrect.

Even if you are correct it does not matter! The bill of rights protects our rights from mob rule. You can not just pass laws that violate the constitution...no matter how many people want it. You CAN amend the constitution.... There is a process for it.... Why not do it the right way????? Is it because deep down you actually know you dont have the support you need?

And I'm an extremist???? Me and millions of others...including the founders of our country. "Scary guns" are going nowhere.
Countryboy

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Jul 12, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>

And no, liberals are not saying "We shouldn't even have a border much less defend it".

Why do you make such obvious lies?

Isn't that embarrassing?
Dude.... Happy right on this forum has said it is an imaginary line that should be disregard. Many dems have made this argument lately.... Why do you lie? Lol

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#7 Jul 12, 2016
Countryboy wrote:
<quoted text>

Elections are not term limits by any stretch. It is supposed to be a public service being a politician....not an entire career.
If the people a politicians represent do not want him to make a career out of it they have the choice to vote him out of office every time there is an election. They can limit his term in any election.

The problem is people actually often like their own politician, congressmen, senator, governor, whatever that is why they vote for him, they want term limits for the person some other group of people chose.
Countryboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am very middle of the road.
I provided you with one example where you are an extremist, not middle of the road at all.....when as much as 90% of the country disagrees with you you are not middle of the road. Need a dictionary?
Countryboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That 90% is just regurgitated BS and you absolutely know it. The sales and increase in permits speak for themselves.........
90% support expanded federal background checks.

CBS/New York Times poll, conducted Oct. 21-25: "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 92 percent. Oppose: 7 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 7-11: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database across all 50 states?" Favor: 86 percent. Oppose: 12 percent. Unsure: 2 percent.

Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Sept. 17-21: "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 93 percent. Oppose: 6 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Pew Research Center poll, conducted July 14-20: Do you favor or oppose "making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"? Favor: 85 percent. Oppose: 13 percent. Unsure/Refused: 2 percent.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statemen...

Other gun control measures do not have that level of support but still have high levels of support.

Your other stuff about increased sales and lines at gun shows just proves your poor understanding of percentages.

Having 90% of Americans disagree with you on that particular issue by definition means you are not at all middle of the road on that issue.

Yes the second says "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"

Note what it does not say. It does not say that you have a right not to submit to a background check. It does not say if that check turns up a criminal past you have a right to a gun anyway, it does not say you have a right to any gun or other armament you want. It does not say that the government can not "regulate" that right by putting limits on the types of weapons civilians can own etc......We have a supreme court that decides such things as what constitutes an infringement....they decided for example that Chicago's hand gun ban was an infringement.....the assault weapons ban was not (it expired but was upheld by the Supreme court), etc. etc.
Countryboy wrote:
<quoted text>

"Scary guns" are going nowhere.
Drop the silly shit. We have talked about this before. As you know, like a great many liberals, I do not find guns scary at all. They are tools, I actually own quite a few of them. That kind of silly shit about "scary guns" just makes you out to be a liar.

Since: Dec 15

Location hidden

#8 Jul 12, 2016
frigginhell wrote:
Just wondering in this age of partisan pissing matches if there is anything that everyone can agree upon that needs fixing and a solution for it that can be agreed upon.
I'm racking my brain and honestly I can't think of a thing and that's just sad.
I think the one of the problems is that many people on both sides do not want a solution. They thrive on chaos and discord. It is indeed sad.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#9 Jul 12, 2016
frigginhell wrote:
Just wondering in this age of partisan pissing matches if there is anything that everyone can agree upon that needs fixing and a solution for it that can be agreed upon.
I'm racking my brain and honestly I can't think of a thing and that's just sad.
If we could agree it wouldn't be "this age of partisan pissing matches".....it is that because half the country pays attention to facts and the other half gets their so called information from Fox News and the right wing biosphere.

Before the internet. Before Fox news, there were still Republicans and Democrats, left and right, and they still didn't agree on policy, direction, etc......but at least they did agree on the basic facts.

Nowadays the right not only has ideological and policy differences with the the left, but they actually live in a fact free bubble of their own making, where the so called facts themselves are partisan and ideological.

Until Republicans get a grip on this and come back to a place where the facts are not in dispute but the policies are, how can there even be a conversation?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#10 Jul 12, 2016
frigginhell wrote:
Just wondering in this age of partisan pissing matches if there is anything that everyone can agree upon that needs fixing and a solution for it that can be agreed upon.
I'm racking my brain and honestly I can't think of a thing and that's just sad.
I don't know if you have noticed but the vast majority of my posts on here are not so much arguments that liberal policies are better then conservative ones........I can't even get to that point because I seem to spend all of my time correcting the factual record from all the outright false information the average conservative on here believes to be factual.

We {figuratively speaking} can argue all day long about weather worms or lures catch more trout, but if you don't agree with me on what worms are, what lures are, and what trout are, we can't even have a conversation.

Since: Jun 16

South Point, OH

#11 Jul 12, 2016
Countryboy wrote:
Term limits?
Inserting unrelated BS into bills?
asset forfeiture?

Seems to me most people are for pot legalization even if they personally disagree with smoking it.

But idk.... Men can decide to be woman now so i don't have much faith left in common sense or decency anymore. These idiots have flat out said that we shouldn't even have a border let alone defend it....and they fight for the "right" to kill babies.... Common ground is impossible. Somebody needs to wake me when the s*** finially hits the fan

And I'm a guy who considers himself middle of the road.... Even slightly left leaning 8 years ago.
I can agree with a couple of those. Real election reform should take place. Although I'm not sure we can meet on it. I would like to see Citizen's United over turned. Businesses are not people. Those people who work for them already have a vote and ability to contribute to campaigns or causes. I would like to see the electoral college abolished. I would like to see gerrymandering ended and have election districts based on population. Term limits are something I can see an argument for and against.
Earmarks definitely need to be abolished. More transparency in the legal process. All bills should have their authors clearly listed. Allowing Reps and Senators vote for absent colleagues should be a felony as well. Hell, for that matter working in the House and Senate should be like any other job. You miss to many days of work and you should be fired.

“Denny Crain”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#12 Jul 16, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>

If the people a politicians represent do not want him to make a career out of it they have the choice to vote him out of office every time there is an election. They can limit his term in any election.

The problem is people actually often like their own politician, congressmen, senator, governor, whatever that is why they vote for him, they want term limits for the person some other group of people chose.

<quoted text>

I provided you with one example where you are an extremist, not middle of the road at all.....when as much as 90% of the country disagrees with you you are not middle of the road. Need a dictionary?

<quoted text>

90% support expanded federal background checks.

CBS/New York Times poll, conducted Oct. 21-25: "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 92 percent. Oppose: 7 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 7-11: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database across all 50 states?" Favor: 86 percent. Oppose: 12 percent. Unsure: 2 percent.

Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Sept. 17-21: "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 93 percent. Oppose: 6 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Pew Research Center poll, conducted July 14-20: Do you favor or oppose "making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"? Favor: 85 percent. Oppose: 13 percent. Unsure/Refused: 2 percent.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statemen...

Other gun control measures do not have that level of support but still have high levels of support.

Your other stuff about increased sales and lines at gun shows just proves your poor understanding of percentages.

Having 90% of Americans disagree with you on that particular issue by definition means you are not at all middle of the road on that issue.

Yes the second says "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"

Note what it does not say. It does not say that you have a right not to submit to a background check. It does not say if that check turns up a criminal past you have a right to a gun anyway, it does not say you have a right to any gun or other armament you want. It does not say that the government can not "regulate" that right by putting limits on the types of weapons civilians can own etc......We have a supreme court that decides such things as what constitutes an infringement....they decided for example that Chicago's hand gun ban was an infringement.....the assault weapons ban was not (it expired but was upheld by the Supreme court), etc. etc.

<quoted text>

Drop the silly shit. We have talked about this before. As you know, like a great many liberals, I do not find guns scary at all. They are tools, I actually own quite a few of them. That kind of silly shit about "scary guns" just makes you out to be a liar.
59.3% of the people don't know which end the bullet comes out of :)

“Denny Crain”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#13 Jul 16, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>

If we could agree it wouldn't be "this age of partisan pissing matches".....it is that because half the country pays attention to facts and the other half gets their so called information from Fox News and the right wing biosphere.

Before the internet. Before Fox news, there were still Republicans and Democrats, left and right, and they still didn't agree on policy, direction, etc......but at least they did agree on the basic facts.

Nowadays the right not only has ideological and policy differences with the the left, but they actually live in a fact free bubble of their own making, where the so called facts themselves are partisan and ideological.

Until Republicans get a grip on this and come back to a place where the facts are not in dispute but the policies are, how can there even be a conversation?
Before Fox News Democrats were not Socialist !

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#14 Jul 16, 2016
Denny CranesPlace wrote:
<quoted text>Before Fox News Democrats were not Socialist !
Shows you how little you know.

IN FACT. Democrats are far more centrist now then they were in those days......all of the major social programs that exist in this country that are socialist in nature were passed long before Fox news existed.

But I am used to you not actually knowing much about anything so no surprise there.

You might actually be fairly bright if you came out of the fake news, I mean Fox news, bubble and started actually paying attention to facts.
Countryboy

Brooklyn, NY

#15 Jul 16, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>

Shows you how little you know.

IN FACT. Democrats are far more centrist now then they were in those days.....
Are you on drugs Mr. Rod?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#16 Jul 16, 2016
Countryboy wrote:
<quoted text>

Are you on drugs Mr. Rod?
All the major social net programs that you all complain are socialist, were passed long before Fox News existed. FDR was far more of a socialist then any modern democrat, as was Lyndon Johnson, as was the entire Democratic congress that controlled American purse strings in the most prosperous period in US History......the modern democratic party is far more centrist then that.

If you don't know that you need to brush up a bit.....what I am saying is not in dispute among people who actually know political history.

Since: Dec 15

Location hidden

#17 Jul 17, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>All the major social net programs that you all complain are socialist, were passed long before Fox News existed. FDR was far more of a socialist then any modern democrat, as was Lyndon Johnson, as was the entire Democratic congress that controlled American purse strings in the most prosperous period in US History......the modern democratic party is far more centrist then that.

If you don't know that you need to brush up a bit.....what I am saying is not in dispute among people who actually know political history.
I seldom am in agreement with your posts, but you are certainly correct about FDR. His policies of having the government get the country out of the economic downturn known as the Great Depression was indeed radical in those days. My two grandfathers often fought over politics. One loved FDR and the other hated him and voted for Landon, Wilkie, and Dewey. Until I studied it in school I did not know why 2 of the men I loved the most could get into such heated arguments about politics. I would agree that the party of Bill Clinton was much more centrist with Obama a little more left due to the ACA and more regulations from agencies like the EPA but still more centrist than FDR. However, with Bernie Sanders garnering much support and running as a Democrat instead of an Independent (self proclaimed socialist), the party has seemed to take a left turn with Hillary Clinton running a more leftist campaign quite different from the moderate one she ran in 2008. I actually voted for her in the 2008 Democratic primary. I know some people actually supported Bernie Sanders, but have to think that some of his support came from those who were voting against Hillary Clinton rather than for Bernie Sanders. There are those among Hillary's supporters who claim she would move to the center if elected regardless of what the Democratic platform or Bernie Sanders wants. I hope that is right. Cooperation between the White House and the Congress would be beneficial and something we have not seen in recent years.

Since: Jun 16

South Point, OH

#18 Jul 19, 2016
RickN8 wrote:
<quoted text>

I seldom am in agreement with your posts, but you are certainly correct about FDR. His policies of having the government get the country out of the economic downturn known as the Great Depression was indeed radical in those days. My two grandfathers often fought over politics. One loved FDR and the other hated him and voted for Landon, Wilkie, and Dewey. Until I studied it in school I did not know why 2 of the men I loved the most could get into such heated arguments about politics. I would agree that the party of Bill Clinton was much more centrist with Obama a little more left due to the ACA and more regulations from agencies like the EPA but still more centrist than FDR. However, with Bernie Sanders garnering much support and running as a Democrat instead of an Independent (self proclaimed socialist), the party has seemed to take a left turn with Hillary Clinton running a more leftist campaign quite different from the moderate one she ran in 2008. I actually voted for her in the 2008 Democratic primary. I know some people actually supported Bernie Sanders, but have to think that some of his support came from those who were voting against Hillary Clinton rather than for Bernie Sanders. There are those among Hillary's supporters who claim she would move to the center if elected regardless of what the Democratic platform or Bernie Sanders wants. I hope that is right. Cooperation between the White House and the Congress would be beneficial and something we have not seen in recent years.
Clinton is not socialist. She is in fact, quite conservative. Despite the vilifying she receives from right wing loons. That and her age make me not so much a fan. Although I did vote for her in 08 during the primaries.

“Denny Crain”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#19 Aug 1, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>

Shows you how little you know.

IN FACT. Democrats are far more centrist now then they were in those days......all of the major social programs that exist in this country that are socialist in nature were passed long before Fox news existed.

But I am used to you not actually knowing much about anything so no surprise there.

You might actually be fairly bright if you came out of the fake news, I mean Fox news, bubble and started actually paying attention to facts.
Todays Democrats are so centrist they had A self proclaimed Socialist , Sanders and a woman who ran to the left of a Socialist for president !

“Denny Crain”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#20 Aug 1, 2016
Curtain Rod wrote:
<quoted text>All the major social net programs that you all complain are socialist, were passed long before Fox News existed. FDR was far more of a socialist then any modern democrat, as was Lyndon Johnson, as was the entire Democratic congress that controlled American purse strings in the most prosperous period in US History......the modern democratic party is far more centrist then that.

If you don't know that you need to brush up a bit.....what I am saying is not in dispute among people who actually know political history.
Well you started off right but you didn't go far enough. FDR, LBJ, OBAMA, and now Clinton ! Hillary want to force business to share profits. That is straight from Mussolini's platform. Hillary has many things from Socialist agenda.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Forum Rules

Be kind, be respectful, have fun.

More from around the web