What exactly is "compromise"?

Steelplate said:
Yep...we need MORE people who are bigoted against gays, minorities, the poor, the mentally ill, the addicted and the elderly and infirm.....so we can make rich folk even richer....because THIS TIME.....they'll trickle down and.make all of our dreams come true.....nevermind the outsourcing, nevermind the shitty wages and ever decreasing employer paid benefits, nevermind the ever increasing cost of living.....this time, THEY PROMISE....


SUCKER!
Click to expand...
Nevermind the lunatic leftist talking points you just spewed. You're all about silencing the opposition and instituting a one party country, asshole.
 
Boris The Animal said:
To Liberals, compromise means Republicans and Conservatives cave in and kowtow to everything being rammed down our throats by the left. I view compromise as dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. Compromise means selling out principles for the sake of "bipartisanship" and other feel good kumbayah bullshit. Sorry, but the name of the game is that once Conservatives regain the majority in DC, we quash all opposition in order to repair the damage Democrats have caused.
Click to expand...

I'll ask this. If the majority of the people want a change in law, should there be a change in law? Let's use gun background checks as an example.

Somewhere around 96% of the people wanted background checks. Though polls might be inaccurate when close, this was no where near close.

If you think, "No there shouldn't be a change" and you agree with the powers in office that are there to represent the people..........then you sir are part of a dictatorship. The powers heard what the people wanted and neither party made the change. And yes, the Constitution CAN be changed through the right process if the people want that change.

When a Government starts doing what it thinks is in the best interest of the people and ignoring what the people want, it's a dictatorship. WE THE PEOPLE run Congress, not the other way around. The correct process should be taken when changing laws but typical "pissing wars" have shown this is practically impossible even if the it's what the people want.

Again, WE THE PEOPLE control Congress. WE THE PEOPLE decide what's best for America. Democracy is supposed to be the voice of the people.

And if you researched global politics at all you would notice that Republicans have done way more damage to America recently than Democrats. Ever since Corporations bought out the Republicans it's turned into a Corporatocracy and nothing like the old Republican party which I like.

http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/tumblr_lfymxdtkcv1qzwd5oo1_500-copy.jpg
 
Boris The Animal said:
Nevermind the lunatic leftist talking points you just spewed. You're all about silencing the opposition and instituting a one party country, asshole.
Click to expand...

So the Left is the party that wants a one party Country? You sure about that? Have you read your post? "Don't let the party in power make any change" sounds pretty dictator to me........

I say let the people of this Country make the decisions and changes they want, through the correct process, and deal with the outcome. Because when you filibuster everything you don't want, dictator style, then you get statistics that backfire on you.........Obama has the least growth spending of any president since the 50's. Makes him and the party look pretty good for next election. And the bias blind people, much like you seem to be with the Right, will think it was his intention. :megusta:
 
Anti-Party said:
I'll ask this. If the majority of the people want a change in law, should there be a change in law? Let's use gun background checks as an example.

Somewhere around 96% of the people wanted background checks. Though polls might be inaccurate when close, this was no where near close.

If you think, "No there shouldn't be a change" and you agree with the powers in office that are there to represent the people..........then you sir are part of a dictatorship. The powers heard what the people wanted and neither party made the change. And yes, the Constitution CAN be changed through the right process if the people want that change.

When a Government starts doing what it thinks is in the best interest of the people and ignoring what the people want, it's a dictatorship. WE THE PEOPLE run Congress, not the other way around. The correct process should be taken when changing laws but typical "pissing wars" have shown this is practically impossible even if the it's what the people want.

Again, WE THE PEOPLE control Congress. WE THE PEOPLE decide what's best for America. Democracy is supposed to be the voice of the people.

And if you researched global politics at all you would notice that Republicans have done way more damage to America recently than Democrats. Ever since Corporations bought out the Republicans it's turned into a Corporatocracy and nothing like the old Republican party which I like.

http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/tumblr_lfymxdtkcv1qzwd5oo1_500-copy.jpg
Click to expand...
So you think everyone should be a flaming lunatic Liberal Communist like you? Pathetic. We need a Conservative voice to counter the Communist agenda you espouse.
 
Anti-Party said:
I'll ask this. If the majority of the people want a change in law, should there be a change in law? Let's use gun background checks as an example.

Somewhere around 96% of the people wanted background checks. Though polls might be inaccurate when close, this was no where near close.
Click to expand...

See, that's a tough one. Should the will of the people prevail? Well, yes, except when they are taking rights away from others. So for example, Californians voted in the 60s to allow racial discrimination in housing. That was overturned. Similarly, Prop 8 was overturned, even though it got majority vote.

Now I don't think background checks are taking away anyone's rights. Obviously STY and others will disagree with me. Now in California we DO background checks on all gun transactions; it seems to work just fine. But it's something that, if enacted nationally, would probably end up in the Supreme Court regardless of the overwhelming support of them.

The result? I dunno. I'm not a Supreme Court justice.

But in general - yes, majority vote rules - UNLESS it's taking away rights from another group for no reason other than animus.
 
maineman said:
How patriotic of you. If I had my way, you'd be linedup against a wall and shot with the rest of your faux patriot pals.
Click to expand...
To liberals, compromise is murdering the opposition, just like Hitler and Stalin did.

Thank you MM for confirming liberal plans.
 
Steelplate said:
Yep...we need MORE people who are bigoted against gays, minorities, the poor, the mentally ill, the addicted and the elderly and infirm.....so we can make rich folk even richer....because THIS TIME.....they'll trickle down and.make all of our dreams come true.....nevermind the outsourcing, nevermind the shitty wages and ever decreasing employer paid benefits, nevermind the ever increasing cost of living.....this time, THEY PROMISE....


SUCKER!
Click to expand...
Is Obama still out sourcing contracts for obamacare?
 
007 said:
To liberals, compromise is murdering the opposition, just like Hitler and Stalin did.

Thank you MM for confirming liberal plans.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!! And the Totalitarian Left don't want real Conservatives running on the GOP line. they want their hand-picked establishment RINOs like Chris Christie.
 
Lol... Life's a bitch, ain't it boris?

Your country's fillin' up with negroes and mexicans and asians and they all vote for democrats and there ain't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

It must suck to be you!
 
tekkychick said:
See, that's a tough one. Should the will of the people prevail? Well, yes, except when they are taking rights away from others. So for example, Californians voted in the 60s to allow racial discrimination in housing. That was overturned. Similarly, Prop 8 was overturned, even though it got majority vote.

Now I don't think background checks are taking away anyone's rights. Obviously STY and others will disagree with me. Now in California we DO background checks on all gun transactions; it seems to work just fine. But it's something that, if enacted nationally, would probably end up in the Supreme Court regardless of the overwhelming support of them.

The result? I dunno. I'm not a Supreme Court justice.

But in general - yes, majority vote rules - UNLESS it's taking away rights from another group for no reason other than animus.
Click to expand...

Right, Liberty is always a debate. But that type of Liberty is nothing like today's talk of Liberty held by some Libertarians which is damaging and prone to backfire. On those cases I use a "risk vs. necessity" system.

Let's take a popular one, seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Does it infringe on their liberty when we use law to attempt to force them to wear/use them? I use the "risk vs. necessity" system and ask "why is it necessary for them to have the right not to wear safety devices? There is no necessity except for personal interest. I ask "what is the risk if they don't". They have a much higher risk of death in an accident and this directly impacts their family and loved ones for life which infringes their loved ones Liberties to live a life without that trauma.

Risk vs necessity on racial discrimination housing. No risk on either side, but there is necessity on the discriminated side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top