What social concessions should liberals and conservatives make to each other?

Answer 1

The needs are growing. Time is running out in so many ways. Would it really benefit any of us to still be arguing in a burning building?

Answer 2

I confess. I don't understand liberals. I don't know what they're about, I don't know how they think the way they do. All I know is many of them yell alot. I guess that's just the way people are, but I still don't understand it.

I don't understand how someone could support abortion, I don't understand how people could support crude and rude language on television, I don't understand how people could make fun of our President.

However, I respect you for being people, and respect your right to speak, hold opinions, and voice them. Thank you and goodnight.

Answer 3

What do you mean by concessions?What kind , referring to what social issues?

Answer 4

the American people will sort that out by the actions of their representatives...I don't think i will ever vote Republican again...there there's my concession

Answer 5

Stop accepting money for policies and leave policy decisions to the American People.

Answer 6

A couple of weeks ago somebody named "thehiddenangle" posted this question here on Y!A:

"Why don't people know that 'Under God' was not in the original pledge of allegiance, added only in the 1950s? Is it ignorant to demand to 'leave it as it was originally written' when it was modified by Christians only a couple of decades ago as a subversive attempt to mix church and state?"

The first answer was by guy who called himself "c_sense_1":

"1954 to be precise. In fact, here's the irony: Before 1954 it said 'One nation idivisible.' They then took that beautiful phrase, and chopped it up ('divided' it). And in so doing, they divided our 'indivisible' nation in two:
-- People who could say the pledge with sincerity (Christians, Jews, and Muslims).
-- People who could not say the pledge with sincerity (pretty much everybody else). i.e. you could say it as long as you were just mouthing words.

In other words they 'amended' the Pledge of Allegiance to exclude atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, pagans, etc. These people are no longer eligible to pledge allegiance to the country. There is no different version for them ... you either say this is a 'nation under God', or ... sorry, you're disqualified.
I.e., they amended the pledge in 1954 to make it clear that you could no longer be considered a loyal American unless you believed in God.
Could some of the modern divisions in the country, along religious lines, be traced back to this little bit of symbolism?"

The next 5 answers were short.

"Thank you. I really did not know that."
"And they had good reason to add it in there. I am not sorry that it offends you."
"Yes, that is ignorant. Thanks for checking with us. ... Anything else you need to know?"
"Because they are ignorant. People are selectively righteously indignant. Funny how they were'nt complaining about God not being mentioned prior to their adding 'under God' in!"
"I don't think it was subversive."

And then I jumped in. It was sheer coincidence that the answer right before mine ended with the one word -- in the original question -- that made me angriest.

"Subversive ?????

God, how I hate you people. I wish you'd leave this country, because you don't know everything about the Establishment Clause and if you think your view about it is right and everyone else's is 'subversive,' then you need a kick in the pants so hard that it'd send you to .......................... Antartica."

There were still six more responses after mine. But the interesting thing is how I ended up debating with the first guy: "c_sense_1." He added this comment to his original one:

"Can anyone really read the amazingly hateful posts on YA ... Americans expressing open "hatred" of fellow Americans (did I just hear Mark D say 'God how I hate you people"?) ... and say we are still 'One nation indivisible'?"

So I added some comments to my original post:

"c-sense-1 .... the word 'subversive' is itself amazingly hateful. Yes, you saw me say that, obviously. Now explain why it is okay and not hateful to accuse the majority of Congress, in 1954 when they passed the bill putting the words 'under God' in the pledge, of being 'subversive.' The majority of Congress. The majority. How is that 'subversive' and how is that accusation not hateful?"

Then c_sense_1 added this:

"Yes that's precisely my point! *Both* sides are extremely intolerant of each other, especially on matters of religion, because there is *nothing* more personal or sacred than whether a person chooses to believe, or NOT believe, in God. That is precisely the POINT of the Establishment Clause. When the government passes laws declaring that belief in God is part and parcel of declaring yourself a loyal American ... that's what happens."

So I added this:

"At least it seems now that maybe I've gotten a concession out of you that 'thehiddenangle'-s original statement also carries a whiff of hatefulness, too.
No matter how much you might wish it, no interpretation of the Establishment Clause is ever going to make everybody happy. Put the words 'under God' in the pledge, someone is going to be unhappy about it and hate the people who put the words in. Take the words out of the pledge, someone else is going to be unhappy about that and will hate the ones who took them out.
I'll concede this to you. The pledge does indeed end up looking hypocritical when it results in this kind of divisiveness. You've got a valid point there. There is hypocrisy in the pledge, because we have always been divided and always will be."

So he concluded :

"... Good points. So we have traded concessions. ... So maybe there's hope after all. (Cheers.) :-)"

I bid him the same, "Cheers, to you too. ;-)"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjFFyT_SYQJsMM9bhMcv_J7sy6IX?qid=20061115205013AAMC1ul&show=7#profile-info-e76e13939d5e56905a047d8df4538761aa
.

Answer 7

One will buy the beer the other the potato chips.

Answer 8

zero