Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it fair to assume that you are a moderate conservative? Will you tell me who you voted for in presidential elections?
To make it fair, I'll just tell you who I voted for 88 Bush, 92 Bush, 96 Clinton, 2000 Gore, 2004 Kerry, 2008 Obama, (2012 Palin)
Ford, Reagan, Bush, Perot (yes, I admit it), Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain (but didn't wanna - would have voted for Hillary had she gotten the nomination)
I always have thought McCain was a patriot and a decent human being, but I felt he should have chosen Huckabee or Romney as his running mate. Palin didn't have the experience to be on the national scene. If he wanted a woman, Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been a more plausible choice.
Colin Powell is my idea of a moderate conservative. I prefer the POTUS have military experience. He didn't want to go into Iraq and he was right.
My favorite Democrats through the years: George Mitchell - who seemed very measured and a real statesman. Also liked Tom Foley, Speaker of the House. Honorable, intelligent and steadfast. Sen. Paul Simon - a real intellectual, and a gentleman, who worked hard for his constituents but also for the entire country. And of course, Senator Sam Ervin, who I admired as a Jeffersonian and Southerner, even if I didn't always agree with him.
Contemporary DEMs: Arlen Specter, LOL, and Liebermann . . .
No, I didn't miss that part of your post at all - I thought I was addressing it.
But I do think that you are very wrong w/ your assertion that the only people who dislike government involvement live in the rural parts of the USA.
I agree with you that there is a huge chasm in philosophy b/n those people who are hard-working Americans who pay taxes and those who seem to feel everyone else's taxes are supposed to subsidize their needs. We have created a dependent class of people b/c of the handouts. Of course people used to getting a check every month aren't gonna want that to end. Why would they?
Your solution was to get people to compromise when political parties won't, but you fail to understand that it is the people who drive the political party positions. If people created this divide to begin with, how can people be the solution?
While I admit that putting people into two camps, urban and rural, is a generalization and does not apply to everyone everywhere, if you take a look at how people vote you will see that even in the "Redest" states, the majority in the cities still vote Democrat, and in the "Bluest" states, the majority of those living in the country still vote Republican.
Both urban and rural people work hard and pay their taxes, the difference they have is in how those taxes should be applied. You have two diametrically opposed ideologies, and there can be no compromise. It would be like trying to find a compromise between life and death.
Your solution was to get people to compromise when political parties won't, but you fail to understand that it is the people who drive the political party positions. If people created this divide to begin with, how can people be the solution?
While I admit that putting people into two camps, urban and rural, is a generalization and does not apply to everyone everywhere, if you take a look at how people vote you will see that even in the "Redest" states, the majority in the cities still vote Democrat, and in the "Bluest" states, the majority of those living in the country still vote Republican.
Both urban and rural people work hard and pay their taxes, the difference they have is in how those taxes should be applied. You have two diametrically opposed ideologies, and there can be no compromise. It would be like trying to find a compromise between life and death.
Sorry to "horn in" I agree with what you are saying...BUT think when you sdaid it was the PEOPLE created the divide/parties...what we created.....surely.....we can get together and try to "fix". Just my theory but the dialogue WE/I seek only can happen when diverse people interact with each other...more rural areas usually have less diverse people...the city people have to compromise among their diverse groups so they can live together and prosper...maybe they are onto something...I think if rural people met city people both groups will see they have many if not most of the same goals in common... I do NOT mean to say that "blue" is the way.... I vote Demo. sometimes...and REp. once in awhile. I am conservative on many issues and very liberal on others...
Your solution was to get people to compromise when political parties won't, but you fail to understand that it is the people who drive the political party positions. If people created this divide to begin with, how can people be the solution?
While I admit that putting people into two camps, urban and rural, is a generalization and does not apply to everyone everywhere, if you take a look at how people vote you will see that even in the "Redest" states, the majority in the cities still vote Democrat, and in the "Bluest" states, the majority of those living in the country still vote Republican.
Both urban and rural people work hard and pay their taxes, the difference they have is in how those taxes should be applied. You have two diametrically opposed ideologies, and there can be no compromise. It would be like trying to find a compromise between life and death.
People would not think that they should be the recipients of every entitlement under the sun if politicians had not created those entitlements. Right? The average Joe on the Street did not create these entitlements. Politicians did. The problems have arisen b/c politicians created Federal programs, then imposed them on the states, and when the states could not afford the programs, Fed $$ starting pouring in. So we have become dependent on Fed $$$. If states would be responsible for meeting their own budgets - and cut out whatever programs they cannot meet - then that would be the end of that.
For example . . . the Feds pour money into school programs, but only if schools create the programs and accept the money. If states decided they were simply going to quit special programs for 4 y/o kids, then that is the end of that. No more need for the Federal money . . .
Sorry to "horn in" I agree with what you are saying...BUT think when you sdaid it was the PEOPLE created the divide/parties...what we created.....surely.....we can get together and try to "fix". Just my theory but the dialogue WE/I seek only can happen when diverse people interact with each other...more rural areas usually have less diverse people...the city people have to compromise among their diverse groups so they can live together and prosper...maybe they are onto something...I think if rural people met city people both groups will see they have many if not most of the same goals in common... I do NOT mean to say that "blue" is the way.... I vote Demo. sometimes...and REp. once in awhile. I am conservative on many issues and very liberal on others...
I already acknowledged that the goals were similar to both groups of people, the difference is the means in achieving those goals. It is that difference where the divide lies, not in the goals they are trying to achieve. Those living in cities typically look to government for the solution to their problems. Those living in the country typically look to each other for the solution, and not government. Most urban dwellers think the government is the only entity capable of solving their issue. Whereas, most of those dwelling in rural areas consider government to be the cause of their problems, not the solution.
The more government does, the happier city critters are, and rural critters consider it even more government oppression. The more government intrudes on people's lives, the greater the divide. How can there be a compromise when one group considers the other group's solution as unadulterated evil to be avoided at all costs, and visa versa?
I already acknowledged that the goals were similar to both groups of people, the difference is the means in achieving those goals. It is that difference where the divide lies, not in the goals they are trying to achieve. Those living in cities typically look to government for the solution to their problems. Those living in the country typically look to each other for the solution, and not government. Most urban dwellers think the government is the only entity capable of solving their issue. Whereas, most of those dwelling in rural areas consider government to be the cause of their problems, not the solution.
The more government does, the happier city critters are, and rural critters consider it even more government oppression. The more government intrudes on people's lives, the greater the divide. How can there be a compromise when one group considers the other group's solution as unadulterated evil to be avoided at all costs, and visa versa?
I can see your point...mainly the first paragraph...but cities...by their nature have always(depended) on the countryside around them for their very exisatence...some city folk help one another(though I concede not as much as rural). It is a more common phenomena in smaller towns and cities. I grew up in Scranton, PA kinda big but neighbors always helped neighbors. Conversely rural folk need to depend on one another for "their survival"....I undersytand and agree to a point what you are saying...but I still think there is room for compromise. Tha cities really need the countryside for survival. But man's greatest achievements...culturally...architecturally...etc. ...the "epitome" our our culture is realized by the cities. The city needs the "country" and not necessarily the other way around. BUT would man have achieved his greatest accomplishments if not for the cities...their Universities...etc. Both are necessary...you may say the city is "born on the back" of the countryside...sorry longwinded...LOL... Sorry I mispelled so much.
People would not think that they should be the recipients of every entitlement under the sun if politicians had not created those entitlements. Right? The average Joe on the Street did not create these entitlements. Politicians did. The problems have arisen b/c politicians created Federal programs, then imposed them on the states, and when the states could not afford the programs, Fed $$ starting pouring in. So we have become dependent on Fed $$$. If states would be responsible for meeting their own budgets - and cut out whatever programs they cannot meet - then that would be the end of that.
For example . . . the Feds pour money into school programs, but only if schools create the programs and accept the money. If states decided they were simply going to quit special programs for 4 y/o kids, then that is the end of that. No more need for the Federal money . . .
There will always be people who think they are entitled to "everything under the sun", with or without politicians. I certainly cannot blame politicians for promising to give their constituents what they want in order to be elected.
As far as the means by which politicians give their constitutuents what they want, I do hold politicians accountable. At the very least every politician, regardless of political party, should adhere to the rule of law and the restrictions placed upon government by the US Constitution, and the constitution of their respective State if they happen to be a State politician. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people, in most cases, do not hold their politicians accountable.
I believe it was in Printz v. United States 521 US 898 (1997) where the Supreme Court ruled that unfunded federal mandates imposed upon the States were unconstitutional. So if the federal government wants to establish a nation-wide standard (assuming they have the constitutional authority to do so) then they must fund that national standard, or the States do not need to comply with the federal law.
Education is one area the federal government should have no role in, since the US Constitution never granted them that authority. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, as is every taxpayer dollar spent by the federal government on education since 1980, by both Democrat and Republicans alike. As a result, public education has only gotten worse since 1980. Which feeds into the ideology of those who believe government is the source of the problem, not the solution.
There will always be people who think they are entitled to "everything under the sun", with or without politicians. I certainly cannot blame politicians for promising to give their constituents what they want in order to be elected.
As far as the means by which politicians give their constitutuents what they want, I do hold politicians accountable. At the very least every politician, regardless of political party, should adhere to the rule of law and the restrictions placed upon government by the US Constitution, and the constitution of their respective State if they happen to be a State politician. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people, in most cases, do not hold their politicians accountable.
I believe it was in Printz v. United States 521 US 898 (1997) where the Supreme Court ruled that unfunded federal mandates imposed upon the States were unconstitutional. So if the federal government wants to establish a nation-wide standard (assuming they have the constitutional authority to do so) then they must fund that national standard, or the States do not need to comply with the federal law.
Education is one area the federal government should have no role in, since the US Constitution never granted them that authority. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, as is every taxpayer dollar spent by the federal government on education since 1980, by both Democrat and Republicans alike. As a result, public education has only gotten worse since 1980. Which feeds into the ideology of those who believe government is the source of the problem, not the solution.
You are correct re: federal mandates. And I agree with you about education and why it has increasingly gone downhill in the last 30 or so years.
But do you really think that people would be standing around asking for their piece of the federal pie if they had not been conditioned to expect it?
I can see your point...mainly the first paragraph...but cities...by their nature have always(depended) on the countryside around them for their very exisatence...some city folk help one another(though I concede not as much as rural). It is a more common phenomena in smaller towns and cities. I grew up in Scranton, PA kinda big but neighbors always helped neighbors. Conversely rural folk need to depend on one another for "their survival"....I undersytand and agree to a point what you are saying...but I still think there is room for compromise. Tha cities really need the countryside for survival. But man's greatest achievements...culturally...architecturally...etc. ...the "epitome" our our culture is realized by the cities. The city needs the "country" and not necessarily the other way around. BUT would man have achieved his greatest accomplishments if not for the cities...their Universities...etc. Both are necessary...you may say the city is "born on the back" of the countryside...sorry longwinded...LOL... Sorry I mispelled so much.
I agree that it is the dependency nature of cities that breeds the government dependency mentality among many city critters. Conversely, it is the independent nature of rural areas that breeds the exact opposite mentality toward government in most country folk.
Cities need those people in the country, I agree, but those in the country also have their lives made easier by those in the cities. Factories that build tractors, grain storage bins, and just about everything else necessary for a family to grow and maintain a multi-hundred acre farm these days comes from cities. Both groups benefit from each other, but that does not mean they see eye-to-eye on how to achieve a mutually desired goal, and I seriously doubt that they ever will.
Divorce!
Encourage the geographical divides, concentrate on North or South. Then divorce.
It would be beneficial for both sides.
Look at all the great stuff the Red states can do:
The red states can promote religion and creationism. You can issue a 30 day ultimatum for all muslims to depart your country or risk arrest. You can have the Bud breweries and NASCAR tracks. You can repeal all civil rights laws, abolish organizations such as the ACLU. You can also cut all funds for cultural institutions. You can convert museums into indoor shooting ranges. Any more?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
