• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bipartisanship or the common good.

presluc

presluc

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
10,967
Reaction score
2,134
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wish to address the shooting at the Republican baseball practice that happened today .

It is my belief that this was a heinous act created by a heinous person the taking of anybody's life is wrong unless it is in defense. Personally , I condemn this act and I condemn the man that created it .

Secondly, Today I hear a lot of politicians from all sides asking for harmony and bipartisanship , which is good.
The American people has been asking for bipartisanship and harmony in politics since 2000 at least.
My point is not to lay blame on the Democratic party or the Republican party, merely to ask why it takes a tragic indecent of politicians and people getting shot to ask for bipartisanship and harmony for the leaders of America to work together for America.

3rd This in no way should change my thought of condemning this act or the man that created the act.
To ask a question that has yet to be ask .
According to his background this was not a good person he had threatened the president he, has been in trouble with the police he has committed assault fired a weapon in anger.
Where did he get the guns?:peace
 
presluc said:
I wish to address the shooting at the Republican baseball practice that happened today .

It is my belief that this was a heinous act created by a heinous person the taking of anybody's life is wrong unless it is in defense. Personally , I condemn this act and I condemn the man that created it .

Secondly, Today I hear a lot of politicians from all sides asking for harmony and bipartisanship , which is good.
The American people has been asking for bipartisanship and harmony in politics since 2000 at least.
My point is not to lay blame on the Democratic party or the Republican party, merely to ask why it takes a tragic indecent of politicians and people getting shot to ask for bipartisanship and harmony for the leaders of America to work together for America.
Click to expand...

People who shoot politicians are inept cowards. The right way to enact change is to get involved with politics. Anyone who shoots a politician of the opposite team, can only be seen with the highest levels of contempt and derision. Their own inadequacy to fine tune a political message that people respond to leads them to take out their frustrations in destructive ways. It's sad, but, fortunately in this time and place in America political violence is comparatively rare to say, Northern Ireland in the 70's.

3rd This in no way should change my thought of condemning this act or the man that created the act.
To ask a question that has yet to be ask .
According to his background this was not a good person he had threatened the president he, has been in trouble with the police he has committed assault fired a weapon in anger.
Where did he get the guns?:peace
Click to expand...

He probably obtained them legally. Maybe he didn't but, there is little stopping him if he wanted to obtain guns.
 
presluc said:
I wish to address the shooting at the Republican baseball practice that happened today .

It is my belief that this was a heinous act created by a heinous person the taking of anybody's life is wrong unless it is in defense. Personally , I condemn this act and I condemn the man that created it .

Secondly, Today I hear a lot of politicians from all sides asking for harmony and bipartisanship , which is good.
The American people has been asking for bipartisanship and harmony in politics since 2000 at least.
My point is not to lay blame on the Democratic party or the Republican party, merely to ask why it takes a tragic indecent of politicians and people getting shot to ask for bipartisanship and harmony for the leaders of America to work together for America.

3rd This in no way should change my thought of condemning this act or the man that created the act.
To ask a question that has yet to be ask .
According to his background this was not a good person he had threatened the president he, has been in trouble with the police he has committed assault fired a weapon in anger.
Where did he get the guns?:peace
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's ignore the hateful rhetoric and make it aboit gun control.
 
Now, more than ever, normal people need to defend themselves against leftist's bent on violence. With the killers FB page full of left wing talking points we can be thankful that we have the second amendment.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, let's ignore the hateful rhetoric and make it aboit gun control.
Click to expand...

Some lunatic got a hold of a gun and unloaded on innocent people. It wasn't hateful rhetoric on the MSM that caused him to be a lunatic, and if he just borrowed the gun from a friend or family; then no amount of gun control would have changed that either. It does not bode well if even in the face of tragedy we can not get bipartisanship and just each side seeking to further their own agenda.
 
presluc said:
I wish to address the shooting at the Republican baseball practice that happened today .

It is my belief that this was a heinous act created by a heinous person the taking of anybody's life is wrong unless it is in defense. Personally , I condemn this act and I condemn the man that created it.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. I would offer the caveat that I think there may be rare instances wherein it is necessary to attack - usually, I think, when political change is impossible due to the system in place. Could be argued that is a form of defense?

presluc said:
Secondly, Today I hear a lot of politicians from all sides asking for harmony and bipartisanship , which is good.
The American people has been asking for bipartisanship and harmony in politics since 2000 at least.
My point is not to lay blame on the Democratic party or the Republican party, merely to ask why it takes a tragic indecent of politicians and people getting shot to ask for bipartisanship and harmony for the leaders of America to work together for America.
Click to expand...
Nonpartisanship is a good goal, but depends on all sides having some shared values and ideals.

I am personally concerned that our society is reaching levels of disagreement and discordant ideals which may lead to more of this.
 
The Mark said:
I tend to agree. I would offer the caveat that I think there may be rare instances wherein it is necessary to attack - usually, I think, when political change is impossible due to the system in place. Could be argued that is a form of defense?

Nonpartisanship is a good goal, but depends on all sides having some shared values and ideals.

I am personally concerned that our society is reaching levels of disagreement and discordant ideals which may lead to more of this.
Click to expand...

The only question is what is it about liberalism that conservatives disagree with and vice versa.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The only question is what is it about liberalism that conservatives disagree with and vice versa.
Click to expand...
No, the question is what they can agree on.

IF we find there is nothing, then we really do have a problem. But I'm not convinced we've fallen that far yet.
 
ModerateRN said:
Some lunatic got a hold of a gun and unloaded on innocent people. It wasn't hateful rhetoric on the MSM that caused him to be a lunatic, and if he just borrowed the gun from a friend or family; then no amount of gun control would have changed that either. It does not bode well if even in the face of tragedy we can not get bipartisanship and just each side seeking to further their own agenda.
Click to expand...

There's nothing about this tragedy that justifies trying to stip away our civil rights.
 
The Mark said:
No, the question is what they can agree on.

IF we find there is nothing, then we really do have a problem. But I'm not convinced we've fallen that far yet.
Click to expand...

Do conservatives and liberals both believe that the federal government has a purpose?

Do they both agree that our elected officials are elected to represent the people and have a duty to serve their interests?

Those are my two questions.
 
The Mark said:
Nonpartisanship is a good goal, but depends on all sides having some shared values and ideals.
Click to expand...

I don't get partisanship at all, Don't more people have mixed views. I just don't understand how some many people seem to the similar views about every issue and an equal number seem to have polar opposite views about those same issues, but so few have mixed views.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Do conservatives and liberals both believe that the federal government has a purpose?

Do they both agree that our elected officials are elected to represent the people and have a duty to serve their interests?

Those are my two questions.
Click to expand...
It really depends on how specific you get - no one conservative or liberal believes the same as another.

And additionally, there are degreements on the specifics of what purpose the government has, and what precisely "serving the interest of the voters" means.

One person might say that the purpose of government is to protect it's citizens. Another would define 'protect' as including only protection from physical harm, and yet another would define 'protect' as including provisions to provide food, clothing, and housing to people who are homeless.

This spiral of definition has no real end.
 
apdst said:
There's nothing about this tragedy that justifies trying to stip away our civil rights.
Click to expand...

So far you have been the only person talking about gun control and stripping of civil liberties in this thread. The OP asked a pertinent question about where did the shooter get the guns, and you took it down the usual conservative rhetoric that it must be an affront to the second amendment.

In the face of tragedy our country is as polarized as ever. If absolute gun control was in place and the lunatic didn't have a gun; then he would have had a knife. There were armed personnel on scene and still people were injured so the answer is clearly not to have everyone have their own gun because that level of protection is still reactionary.
Tragedy should not be about progressing your personal agenda.
 
My agenda is surviving leftwing intolerance and violence. My method is to arm myself as is my right.


ModerateRN said:
Some lunatic got a hold of a gun and unloaded on innocent people. It wasn't hateful rhetoric on the MSM that caused him to be a lunatic, and if he just borrowed the gun from a friend or family; then no amount of gun control would have changed that either. It does not bode well if even in the face of tragedy we can not get bipartisanship and just each side seeking to further their own agenda.
Click to expand...
 
The Mark said:
It really depends on how specific you get - no one conservative or liberal believes the same as another.

And additionally, there are degreements on the specifics of what purpose the government has, and what precisely "serving the interest of the voters" means.

One person might say that the purpose of government is to protect it's citizens. Another would define 'protect' as including only protection from physical harm, and yet another would define 'protect' as including provisions to provide food, clothing, and housing to people who are homeless.

This spiral of definition has no real end.
Click to expand...

My philosophy of government borrows from the code of Hammurabi

Government is supposed to create a system of law so that the strong shall not harm the weak
 
ModerateRN said:
I don't get partisanship at all, Don't more people have mixed views. I just don't understand how some many people seem to the similar views about every issue and an equal number seem to have polar opposite views about those same issues, but so few have mixed views.
Click to expand...
They don't.
Everyone has their own individual view on things.

Political platforms and ideals are agreed upon because there is strength in numbers.

I'm not sure where precisely, but it seems that sometimes, a bunch of people get behind an idea and make it their own.
 
The Mark said:
It really depends on how specific you get - no one conservative or liberal believes the same as another.

And additionally, there are degreements on the specifics of what purpose the government has, and what precisely "serving the interest of the voters" means.

One person might say that the purpose of government is to protect it's citizens. Another would define 'protect' as including only protection from physical harm, and yet another would define 'protect' as including provisions to provide food, clothing, and housing to people who are homeless.

This spiral of definition has no real end.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with partisan politics is it tells people to think a specific way. No one is truly a like, but bipartisan politics are forcing people to think one of two ways
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
My philosophy of government borrows from the code of Hammurabi

Government is supposed to create a system of law so that the strong shall not harm the weak
Click to expand...
That isn't the US government, then.

At least not currently.

And perhaps not ever.
 
ModerateRN said:
That's the problem with partisan politics is it tells people to think a specific way. No one is truly a like, but bipartisan politics are forcing people to think one of two ways
Click to expand...
Only if they agree to it.
 
The Mark said:
That isn't the US government, then.

At least not currently.

And perhaps not ever.
Click to expand...

In principle, the U.S. government should protect the rights of its Citizens from entity's that are stronger and that are indifferent to the needs of the people.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
In principle, the U.S. government should protect the rights of its Citizens from entity's that are stronger and that are indifferent to the needs of the people.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't.

I could accept the rare slip-through-crack example, especially if it was addressed shortly.

But in the USA we have had literally decades of a government which increasingly seems to be under the control of the strong (which I define as people and corporations/organisations with money and power), with no or only scant attention paid to the needs of the people.

Edit: Even beyond that, it seems at times that these entities do not even care that actions they take harm people, so long as they gain more power and money.
 
The Mark said:
But it doesn't.

I could accept the rare slip-through-crack example, especially if it was addressed shortly.

But in the USA we have had literally decades of a government which increasingly seems to be under the control of the strong (which I define as people and corporations/organisations with money and power), with no or only scant attention paid to the needs of the people.
Click to expand...

In order to address that problem people need to challenge those people and organizations that are corrupting the system.
 
ModerateRN said:
So far you have been the only person talking about gun control and stripping of civil liberties in this thread. The OP asked a pertinent question about where did the shooter get the guns, and you took it down the usual conservative rhetoric that it must be an affront to the second amendment.

In the face of tragedy our country is as polarized as ever. If absolute gun control was in place and the lunatic didn't have a gun; then he would have had a knife. There were armed personnel on scene and still people were injured so the answer is clearly not to have everyone have their own gun because that level of protection is still reactionary.
Tragedy should not be about progressing your personal agenda.
Click to expand...

What do you think this thread is about??
 
apdst said:
You're going to challenge Moveon.org?
Click to expand...
And here we see the problem, in many ways.

There is disagreement on what entities are causing harm, even what actually qualifies as harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom