Werewolf said:
^^ U guys simply don't get it. Oblivious to what's underway.
"Government by the people for the people"..............but you're paradigm of adulthood has been framed for you over the last 50-60 years such that its "Government by the government for the people".......which spells tyranny in the end. This is my "seat of the pants" phrase essentially meaning we as a citizenry have lost touch with our government.......particularly with our federal government but also with our states, our counties, cities and our school boards. The evidence is actually there.............however the Mockingbird media only parrots a narrative of division and falsehoods. I suspect both of you guys would deny this exists. Social media too.........but I doubt seriously that either of you have been censored a single time. You freely parrot the narratives laid out before you.
Our Republic requires no only an informed electorate but also a moral fabric. We've lost both and its not going to be an easy or quick fix. What will be required is a very painful and exhausting fix. You're not even experiencing the real pain yet.
I think governmental bloat is one of the largest issues we are facing and I personally am in favor of smaller government and economic principals more in line with Adam Smith's than those of Marx. I agree that mainstream media drives division and is designed to do so based on our modern model of viewership leading to increased profits. Hate drives views and a message of unity drives away views. I think everyone should be free to express themselves without censorship and that open dialogue regarding issues is paramount to moving forward as a society.
A moral electorate is also crucial to moving forward, but it is important not to conflate religious values with morality. Morality exists independent of religion and the Establishment Clause is evidence that the founding fathers wanted each person to pursue their religious beliefs unfeterred by government and sought to have a society where one could not impose their beliefs on another. Thomas Jefferson's writing regarding the Establishment Clause support this notion.
What I am trying to do is stimulate debate on the issues and not have the conversation devolve into ad hominem attacks on one another whether that be gun humper, racist, Marxist, commie, libtard, or whichever insult one side hurls at the other. The use of these characterizations cheapens one's own arguments and detracts from their viability while driving the divisiveness you claim to oppose.
It is possible for people to believe in both laissez-faire economics and be pro-choice. It is possible to be supportive of the Second Amendment and support gay marriage. One can support the legalization of marijuana or other drugs and want stronger borders. To ignore those viewpoints and not recognize nuance within political debate is growing obstacle among Americans that needs to be corrected.
