You painted what sounds like a reasonable starting point to over coming some of our countries current opportunities.

Yet non of them are new, they are the same as when our country was born. Unfortunately there are some principles that simply aren't negotiable.

One being abortion, it is the taking of a human life by the millions. If you are a clincal psychologist as you claim you know the trama this causes the mother and the scars that may never heal.

That second being our 2nd amendment rights shall not be infringed upon. Your a well read individual and don't make decisions based solely on emotion but hard mesurrable data. All of the data says guns actually make us safer from violent crime, external invasion and an oppressive government.

Yet you advocate opposing arguments against what can be measured.

And last our 1st amendment rights being eroded little by little. Why would someone be doing research on here for the NSA if not to silence our voices.

So the case is now, if you warn someone that discrimination will happen, that it is somehow ok? I'm guessing that is the angle you were trying to get at. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A sign proclaiming a business is Christian, does not necessarily indicate that they will not serve homosexuals. It merely indicates that the business is Christian according to Al.

No business open to the public has the right to discriminate against its clientele. If Al would like this right, then he needs to open a private Christian Bakery Club and only take orders from members. The exact details of how that would even work... I couldn't tell you, all I know is that private organisations can restrict their membership.

Umm... because they don't work for the NSA? Maybe they were joking when they said that?

Black and white scenarios do not create harmony. Abortion is a greatly debated topic because we have not established, legally, when life begins. Until we do, we will have religious debates with a few scientific sprinkles added in for color and nothing accomplished.

For hardliners, there is no compromise. In order to achieve harmony in a democratic nation (or in any relationship), you need to compromise. All "my way or the highway" will usually end with you... on the highway, and your crap thrown on the lawn (why is she always right?!).

All rights are subject to limitation based on public safety concerns, or where practice violates the rights of someone else. We already know about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater where no actual fire exists.


Your rights end where the rights of someone else begin.

That is the problem, it is not a true statement. Because the Constitution says all men are created equal.

Your quote,"Your rights end where the rights of someone else begin." I have just as much right to own a gun, just as you have a right to not own a gun. Their is no infringement. Only speculation on the side that does not want to own a gun.

This country was built with all kinds of tools, guns included. This is just a sample thought. You can put abortion, whatever. When something has been made legal it doesn't make people who support the legal issue demons. It simply means if it is a legal law there are legal means to try to change the law. In my estimation any law that knowing results in the death of any one connected to humanity is wrong. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The majority is not always right. We are finding that a majority isn't even needed anymore with the phone and the pen.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose; sometimes you get rained out. Right now there is a very dark cloud over America, someone has said these indeed are times that try men's souls.

Sorry, this turned out far lengthier than I anticipated; I ask your indulgence.

It occurred to me today that I was under a certain secret or unconscious assumption about liberal and conservative: a thinking person is not either of these. Of course, many here appear to believe that their opposite politically is unthinking or else they would not be their opposite politically. And we seem to have come to that place where either bent is permanently and irrevocably, it seems, demonized, where the other side of the aisle is incapable of good or value. Can we put that on a shelf just a moment. No one is going to steal these thoughts; you can have them back when I am done. I promise. My attendant will give you a receipt.

I am basing this idea about "a thinking person being neither liberal nor conservative" by classic definition and not present reality.

Liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Con·serv·a·tive:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

It seems rather plain to me that neither of these mindsets are, on their own, capable of doing what is best, if remaining always true in principle to that mindset. Both are a limited perception of reality. For the critical intellect naturally inclined either way, it seems just wise to engage all ideas and values one holds by pitting it against the other point of view. Yes, certain values and principles held by either perspective may seem sacrosanct, and perhaps are, yet their application may not truly reflect such.

Two cases in point:
The Liberal wants to help the poor but engages in policies that may defeat productivity; the Conservative demands an uninfringed 2nd Amendment right but may overlook the responsibility to public order and safety. Neither is wrong, neither is right. What is for the ultimate well-being of the common good is somewhere in the middle ground between the extremes. Ergo, being left or right only helps if it is a working contrast to what is in consensus best.

Put another way: Get to bloody work, Congress!