tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post249373090811090831..comments2024-03-28T15:24:53.579-04:00Comments on Rational Nation USA: Can the Left and the Right Engage In Meaningful Dialogue?Les Carpenterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-67407026796619094242012-05-08T22:54:38.982-04:002012-05-08T22:54:38.982-04:00I'm late to the discussion here but have to sa...I'm late to the discussion here but have to say one thing: great post, Les, one of your best.Left Coast Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09292257205859285528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-17131693183462958022012-05-08T22:53:48.148-04:002012-05-08T22:53:48.148-04:00JMJ: Google Freudian slip.JMJ: Google Freudian slip.Left Coast Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09292257205859285528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-72336590850925818862012-05-08T18:16:59.170-04:002012-05-08T18:16:59.170-04:00Oh, and, you're welcome!Oh, and, you're welcome!Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-26817682525176255412012-05-08T18:16:19.471-04:002012-05-08T18:16:19.471-04:00I concur, Les. There has indeed been a whole hell ...I concur, Les. There has indeed been a whole hell of a lot of dogmatism coming from the right, too; the moral majority, supply-side gurus, neoconservatives, and now the tea-party minority in Congress. I, though, and for some strange reason, just happen to attract the loonies on the left.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-60389738660127290852012-05-08T01:34:41.202-04:002012-05-08T01:34:41.202-04:00Have you read the entire comment stream on this po...Have you read the entire comment stream on this post? <br /><br />What I find almost amusing is the fact that the problem we have is manifested in both the left and the right. <br /><br />Intelligent individuals unable to find solutions based on objective reasoning. What they fail to recognize it that sooner or later compromise is the only avenue to correcting the ship of state and resolving our fiscal mess.<br /><br />Even I, a advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and rational self interest realize that while tirelessly trying to change minds through reasoned dialogue at the end of the dy nothing gets accomplished without compromise and at least measured agreement.<br /><br />Writing on this blog as well as LCR and the now defunct Conservative Firestorm has lead me to believe as the Griper stated it will be impossible for he differing views to reconcile differences and save this nation as we've heretofore known it.<br /><br />As I make the above statement I cast no aspersions upon one side that I do not cast upon the other. Both are now and have in the past been guilty of helping to create our problems and in continuing to perpetuate them.<br /><br />If there is one thing I've learned from blogging it is this. You will be applauded by those whose views you agree with, you will be vilified by those whose views you disagree with, and when you honestly evaluate situations using your own mind and experiences you will be vilified by both because you refuse to carry water for anyone or either side. I believe it was you who said something to the effect of... few bloggers have the chutzpah to challenge both the left and right. Or something to that effect.<br /><br />Well Will welcome to the small group of bloggers who do. And thanks for lending your unique and reasoned voice to the pages of RN USA both in post and comment form.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-83674843657126735812012-05-08T00:05:16.630-04:002012-05-08T00:05:16.630-04:00Dude, I went to check out your blog and was disapp...Dude, I went to check out your blog and was disappointed to see that you didn't have one. I think that a smart and reasonable fellow like you should really start one. Just a suggestion.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-57977374260296005062012-05-07T23:57:47.202-04:002012-05-07T23:57:47.202-04:00Les, I'm trying to have a "meaningful dia...Les, I'm trying to have a "meaningful dialogue" with the left (Jerry and wd, specifically) on health-care right now and I can't even make a speck of progress. It seems that if isn't single-payer or something else that doesn't involve a massive infusion of hard federal power, they simply aren't interested. Thankfully, not everybody on the left side is that dogmatic (Ron Wyden, Alice Rivlin, and Kent Conrad are 3 that come to mind)Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-23547246282356742812012-05-07T23:49:18.890-04:002012-05-07T23:49:18.890-04:00Well jmj you have out done yourself this time.
PO...Well jmj you have out done yourself this time.<br /><br />POINT OUT SPECIFICALLY WHERE IN MY COMMENT I REFERRED TO, OR EVEN IMPLIED YOU ARE A COMMUNIST.<br /><br />FURTHER POINT OUT WHERE I USED THE WORD COMMUNIST ANYWHERE IN MY POST.<br /><br />Perhaps you should have another jmj and chill. Try to put words in my mouth I did not say or imply again and your comment WILL be deleted.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-46902678674978245822012-05-07T22:06:22.351-04:002012-05-07T22:06:22.351-04:00Les,
"I agree partially JMJ. The difficulty ...Les,<br /><br />"I agree partially JMJ. The difficulty lies in determining what exactly the "mixture" should look like. You would probably view a larger portion being government control (power) while I would view the the mixture should be more heavily liberty leaning.<br /><br />We must have governmental controls and we must protect individual liberties and civil rights as well. Furthermore, we must have a balance as I stated in the post. Again, the challenge is defining the balance that We the People accept as reasonable. Based on rational reasoned thought and not emotional feelings."<br /><br />You are terribly mistaken in thinking I would prefer more or less government regulating this or that.<br /><br />I couldn't give a rat's feces about that.<br /><br />I, like every other civilized, thinking man, want effective and accountable government so as to accommodate as prosperous a life for we Americans as possible. That's all.<br /><br />I am not a communist. The vast majority of we liberals are not communists.<br /><br />JMJJersey McJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15426560061830038806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-6082475838338030482012-05-07T19:09:04.921-04:002012-05-07T19:09:04.921-04:00"this disunity of thought in regards to the C..."this disunity of thought in regards to the Constitution did not always exist between the two political parties. so the question now becomes"<br />There was disunity about the Constitution, the day it was signed. There was disunity about the Constitution every time a Constitutional issue came up. There was disunity about the Constitution, which started a Civil War.<br />We are more clear about the Constitution today, than over 200 years ago. We have 200 years of court decisions, that have defined the Constitution. Yes, there are still Constitutional issues yet to be determined; and farther into the future as American society changes. Founding fathers (who were later President)found disunity among the parties (even their own party) when acting based on the Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-15614345305802382382012-05-07T16:52:40.420-04:002012-05-07T16:52:40.420-04:00Griper, I suppose you are right. I also suspect th...Griper, I suppose you are right. I also suspect that the left may make the same or similar observations.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-84703759298454591312012-05-07T13:49:47.099-04:002012-05-07T13:49:47.099-04:00As long as we allow career politicians there will ...As long as we allow career politicians there will be little success of meaningful dialog between the two parties. The Federalists are charged with protecting us and delivering the mail. All else should be States Rights. Most politicians are only interested in keeping their power base so they can keep their job, there are a couple of exceptions but very few. <br />Term limits and citizen legislators will be the only effective way to regain a balance in the country.skudrunnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07610092853412481236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-18260791767725904082012-05-07T12:36:33.495-04:002012-05-07T12:36:33.495-04:00the two party system is not the problem, Les. if y...the two party system is not the problem, Les. if you look back on history you'll see the same problems with every government created that we are experiencing today. and that problem can be summed up into this one question,<br /><br />"who should have the power and authority to make the decision on any particular issue, the central government or the individual?"<br /><br />Our federal Constitution adds a third party to that question,<br /><br />"who should have the power and authority to make the decision on any particular issue, the central government, the State government or the individual?"<br /><br />now, governmental power and authority can be divided up into two catagories, foreign policy and domestic policies. every person is in agreement as to where power and authority belongs in regards to foreign issues, the central government.<br /><br />the problem lies in the disagreement in regards to domestic issues and this is where the left rules because they are more united and of one thought in their ideology of rule. it is the right that is more disunited in their ideologies of rule.<br /><br />this disunity of thought in regards to the Constitution did not always exist between the two political parties. so the question now becomes,<br />"when did this disunity begin and why?"<br /><br />if you seek a meaningful dialogue with the left, Les it must begin in the seeking the answers to that question. it is the answers to this question that one side or the other dares not seek an answer to.The Griperhttp://griper.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-14391450601254532832012-05-07T07:51:08.658-04:002012-05-07T07:51:08.658-04:00Status Quo. Create the paradigm that eternally per...Status Quo. Create the paradigm that eternally perpetuates the existing system thus insuring the more things change the more they stay the same.<br /><br />The two party system working precisely as modern puppet masters wish.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-53192567898492262102012-05-07T00:30:27.960-04:002012-05-07T00:30:27.960-04:00Les,
I was not arguing only trying to give you an ...Les,<br />I was not arguing only trying to give you an answer to the questions asked of me by you.<br />if i was trying to mmake a point it would be in answer to this question,<br />"Can the left and the right engage in meaningful dialogue?"<br />my response would be no and i gave the reasons why i said no. there can be no meaningful dialogue without unity of the meaning of the Constitution and willingness to abide by that meaning by both sides.The Griperhttp://griper.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-11867853755577275982012-05-06T22:32:23.020-04:002012-05-06T22:32:23.020-04:00Griper, in a democratic republic the people elect ...Griper, in a democratic republic the people elect representatives by majority vote to represent them in congress and make decisions resulting in passing legislation onto law. The question of a laws constitutionality when ot is brought into question is determined by the courts with the ultimate determination resting with the SCOTUS of it gets that far.<br /><br />I know all about the tyranny of the majority that results when there is no protection codified in law to protect the rights of the minority. Bill of Rights.<br /><br />Are you arguing for the sake of arguing Griper? Or do you have a salient point you wish me to consider? <br /><br />One of the reasons we have a republc is because the founders recognized the dangers in a true democracy. Regardless of your inference that is what I meant it is not. I never have nor will I ever.<br /><br />So Griper the ball is in your court. I am interested in precisely how you think the situation should be addressed and the precise outcome you think desirable as well as constitutional. Or, we can keep spinning our wheels.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-35035804392814531302012-05-06T22:01:28.687-04:002012-05-06T22:01:28.687-04:00"But as we live in a democratic republic the ..."But as we live in a democratic republic the final say rests in the majority opinion of the voting population does it not?"<br /><br />if those be the words you refer to, Les, then the answer is no. if the answer was as you imply we would need no constitution and we would still be a nation divided as we are now.<br /><br />besides, if what you say is true then any law that was passed by virtue of the vote of the majority of the people would be constitutional.<br /><br />absolute rule by majority only results in tyranny of the minority by the majority.<br /><br />it is this that the right seeks to prevent by their interpretation. <br /><br />it is this that the interpretation of the left will lead to.<br />and they will justify this rule by declaring that the majority knows what is best for the minority.The Griperhttp://griper.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-56963923157260799442012-05-06T20:37:48.252-04:002012-05-06T20:37:48.252-04:00That may be the fact, but it isn't what this m...That may be the fact, but it isn't what this man believes. He truly doesn't understand the difference between the debt, the deficit, and the budget. <br /><br />He also believes that no voter fraud happens in this country, ever. Even though we live in VA. The state where Gingrich wasn't allowed on the primary ballot for voter fraud. <br /><br />Totally ignorant, and seemed happy to stay that way.Just a conservative girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982406297072353275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-79256351416196638012012-05-06T20:33:30.761-04:002012-05-06T20:33:30.761-04:00Lincoln actually said I believe... "A house d...Lincoln actually said I believe... "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He of course was correct. The fact he chose to use force to preserve the union in reality made him perhaps the first great statist President of the United States. I fully understand your statements and reasoning.<br /><br />I refer you back to my next to last paragraph of my prior comment.<br /><br />I agree there are those on the left unwilling to concede your points just as there are those on the right unwilling to concede to the lefts point of view.<br /><br />So in your analysis yes he only non violent resolution is for one to concede to the other. Or find a workable compromise.<br /><br />I again refer you back to the next to last paragraph in my prior comment. I am interested in your understanding and response to that particular paragraph.<br /><br />Nothing like a sticky wicket so to speak huh Griper?Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-90272160588302920132012-05-06T19:56:32.994-04:002012-05-06T19:56:32.994-04:00Griper, Thank you for clarifying your position. It...Griper, Thank you for clarifying your position. It is as I believed it to be.<br /><br />In the philosophical sense I have no issues with what you state here. The challenge lies in reconciling the different interpretations of what the government should do.<br /><br />I believe we have the best blueprint to answer these questions in the United States Constitution. It provides the framework for how a proper ethical government should function. most will agree with this statement. Because our society and the demands of that society is ever growing/changing the question is, and herein lies the rub, what should the role of our government be in a ever more complex and demanding world.<br /><br />I think I know the proper answer and so do you. But as we live in a democratic republic the final say rests in the majority opinion of the voting population does it not?Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-61726651848070754232012-05-06T19:42:41.430-04:002012-05-06T19:42:41.430-04:00Griper, Thank you for clarifying your position. Yo...Griper, Thank you for clarifying your position. Your clarification is as I believed it would be.<br /><br />In the pure philosophical sense I have no argument with your response. Other than to comment that there must exist a structure by which a nation and society has the mechanism to exert effective and reasonable control over the populae. The United States Constitution provides for just such limited, objective, and rational control.<br /><br />The challenge is in overcoming the differences in interpretation. Something that, as you point out may not be possible.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-51409620738166682662012-05-06T18:20:12.097-04:002012-05-06T18:20:12.097-04:00as to your question to me, Les, I can only say thi...as to your question to me, Les, I can only say this.<br /><br />as long as one side feel justified in the use of force by the federal government over the lives of the people while the other side feels it is unjustified there can be no agreement.<br /><br />we are a nation divided and to paraphrase Mr. Lincoln we cannot survive as a house divided in the use of force by the federal government.<br /><br />and the cause of this division is the dual interpretation of the federal Constitution. to resolve the differences will require that one side or the other submit to the interpretation of the other side.<br /><br />And this is one thing that the left is not willing to do because it is only by their interpretation that allows them to pursue their goals by the use of federal government force. the right considers that as an abuse of constitutional powers by their interpretation.<br /><br />thus the only non-violent means to resolve this issue and remain united is for the right to submit to the interpretation of the left.<br /><br />Obama is the best example of this with his promise to unite this nation again. and his actions as President on domestic issues reveals exactly how he intended on doing this.The Griperhttp://griper.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-52771837072782530262012-05-06T17:40:25.018-04:002012-05-06T17:40:25.018-04:00only one correction in your conclusion, Les. "...only one correction in your conclusion, Les. "one side" will believe that the use of force is justified to resolve the issue. the other side may try to use non violent means to resolve the issue. one non violent means would be the severing of the relationship between the two parties.<br />examples:<br />the colonies attempted to resolve the issues between them and the crown by severing their relationship with the Crown by the declaration of Independence.<br />the southern States attempted to resolve the issues they had with the northern States by severing their relationship by the use of secession from the Union.<br /><br />in both situations the response was the use of force by the other side.<br /><br />is my comment more clear now or have I missed something else?The Griperhttp://griper.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-85920058232693386042012-05-06T15:20:23.865-04:002012-05-06T15:20:23.865-04:00help me understand your statements accurately. If ...help me understand your statements accurately. If I read them correctly you are in essence advocating:<br /><br />1} understanding the opponents goals. <br />2) Recognizing that the dialogue may end in stalemate.<br />3) Accepting that when this happens the inevitability of armed conflict (force) is to be accepted.<br />4) That finding no compromise is acceptable and that war as n alternative is justifiable.<br /><br />Okay, If I have understood correctly I accept the premise you put forth as a possible ultimate outcome.<br /><br />My question then is this... Do you, and I mean you specifically and personally believe we as a nation and peole arrived at this juncture in the year 2012 or do you believe it still possible to find rational non violent means to resolve our differences of opinion.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-47700305536079971572012-05-06T15:10:38.735-04:002012-05-06T15:10:38.735-04:00I agree partially JMJ. The difficulty lies in dete...I agree partially JMJ. The difficulty lies in determining what exactly the "mixture" should look like. You would probably view a larger portion being government control (power) while I would view the the mixture should be more heavily liberty leaning.<br /><br />We must have governmental controls and we must protect individual liberties and civil rights as well. Furthermore, we must have a balance as I stated in the post. Again, the challenge is defining the balance that We the People accept as reasonable. Based on rational reasoned thought and not emotional feelings.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.com