A very clear example is Obama. He ran saying he would reach across the aisle to get things done but his version of reaching out is asking the Repubs if they want a pickle with their shit sandwhich! He never asks for any input on what goes into the sandwhich. Instead he just serves it up and acts surprised when they all vote no. His intollerance of the views of the Repubs runs to counter to his claim of being tollerant and open minded.
Really? Cause how I interpreted what's gone down over the past 2 years as Obama and the Democrats trying to reach out for a middle ground and the Republicans saying fuck off, we're sore losers and we're gonna take our ball else where.
Really? Cause how I interpreted what's gone down over the past 2 years as Obama and the Democrats trying to reach out for a middle ground and the Republicans saying fuck off, we're sore losers and we're gonna take our ball else where.
Totally, that's what I am saying! They compromise all the time, but no compromise is good enough for the Republicans.
Angry conservatives are the first to start puking up things like "MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED" when someone responds to their opinion with "Shut up, you're stupid" or "I won't allow racial slurs on my network, so you're fired". While both those examples and head-stomping aren't technically a first amendment violation, it still makes it all the more appalling that they would do something like that.
I'm sure many of those craphumping teabaggers would've considered it a "constitutional" issue if they'd been the ones stepped on for showing up at a rally.
I'm curious that you say Obama has never asked for any input. Take the health reform bill, He invited the GOP to a half day televised summit to work out some stuff, get their input. All he got in return was
we know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf.
[I am] pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care. . . . The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.
So to deal with them they basically said get rid of everything that you have done so far and start over. This is compromise?
I would also add that the healthcare plan passed was nearly the same as the republican 1992 health care proposal....................... Oh I'm sorry the republicans in 1992 were socialists... Obama has meet the republicans half way on NEARLY every issue. In every case the republicans move the freaking goal post.
When only one party wrote the bill then yes, compromise and bipartisan ship would involve scrapping the bill and starting over.
As to the chart, didn't Cremlian post one that more effectively showed that Democrat Pres plus Republican Congress equaled deficit reduction? Congress controls the purse strings, try posting a chart that shows who controlled Congress and what the defecits looked like.
I agree that the social cons are a pain and want to control what you do in the bedroom. I don't like them what I also don't like is fiscal liberals who think you can fix anything by throwing money at it. I'm with Gomi on that one. Don't give them more money, make them run more efficiently.
The equivalent on the left would be the greenies. They want to tell me how to live my life just as bad as the social cons.
Yes, I enquired about VA loans, a govt backed benefit that I earned. It's not a handout and I don't begrudge anyone for trying to use something they earned.
A loan is never a handout it is a handup. Free stuff is a handout.
What is "free stuff?" We never get anything for free. We pay for our transportation. We would pay for our health care. I am subsidizing you veteran benefits with each paycheck. All this is is collectivization. We all put a little bit in the communal pot so the society can have nice things to all share, like parks, roads, and even you getting help buying a house.
If there's one thing I learned from the Tea Party it's that everything from the government is a handout unless I'm the one receiving it.
Yeah, it's odd how that works out. People who receive government money are usually very adept at rationalizing how they "earn" their benefits while everyone else is a welfare queen. I guess socialism works for those people as long as they are the only ones to receive benefits.
When only one party wrote the bill then yes, compromise and bipartisan ship would involve scrapping the bill and starting over.
So the dems wrote a bill, which becomes their position, what they want. Wouldn't compromise be the republicans saying "Hey we think this should be more like this"?
How does compromise include completely abandoning everything that I have worked on, or believe, and coming to you with a completely blank slate?
The equivalent on the left would be the greenies. They want to tell me how to live my life just as bad as the social cons.
Are you referring to environmentalists? I think there is a bit of a difference between environmental regulation and policing someone's sex life. Basically, we all share the same ecosystem, and so if someone does something rotten like dumping organic mercury into the water system, it harms everybody. Someone being gay next to me does not give me cancer. Someone engaging in destructive behavior toward the environment hurts me, hurts everyone regardless of their political stances.
How does sitting in a motor pool for four years "earn" someone a special loan program?
I believe that if someone took the time to look up the history, they'd find that the conservatives of the time called all sorts of veteran's programs socialist handouts.
The equivalent on the left would be the greenies. They want to tell me how to live my life just as bad as the social cons.
Are you referring to environmentalists? I think there is a bit of a difference between environmental regulation and policing someone's sex life. Basically, we all share the same ecosystem, and so if someone does something rotten like dumping organic mercury into the water system, it harms everybody. Someone being gay next to me does not give me cancer. Someone engaging in destructive behavior toward the environment hurts me, hurts everyone regardless of their political stances.
destructive social behavior can be just as bad as destructive environmental behavior. The damage is just not as obvious.
destructive social behavior can be just as bad as destructive environmental behavior. The damage is just not as obvious.
You don't get to get away with making an ominous blanket statement like that without offering up some specifics and some support for them, chum. Are you suggesting that, say, homosexuality has some sort of public health repercussions akin to the costs and mortality associated with air pollution-related respiratory disease? Do clarify.
destructive social behavior can be just as bad as destructive environmental behavior. The damage is just not as obvious.
If you're contending that gay marriage is "destructive social behaviour," then I think your argument is going down a road that leads to Crazytown. You might want to watch out there, friend.
Before I get branded as a homophobe let me clarify my definition of a family:
A family is any group of concerned adults and/or peers who work together to care for the members thereof.
It doesn't matter to me how many moms or dads you have, as long as everyone genuinely cares about you you belong to a functional family. Most people belong to multiple familes.
Before I get branded as a homophobe let me clarify my definition of a family:
A family is any group of concerned adults and/or peers who work together to care for the members thereof.
By this definition, the entire U.S. is a family, so what's the problem with "handouts"? it's just the family helping each other. Aren't families pretty socialist?
A loan is never a handout it is a handup. Free stuff is a handout.
What is "free stuff?" We never get anything for free. We pay for our transportation. We would pay for our health care. I am subsidizing you veteran benefits with each paycheck. All this is is collectivization. We all put a little bit in the communal pot so the society can have nice things to all share, like parks, roads, and even you getting help buying a house.
Free stuff is anything you don't pay for. Note I didn't specify anything as being "free stuff"? I merely pointed out that a loan is not a handout.
Before I get branded as a homophobe let me clarify my definition of a family:
A family is any group of concerned adults and/or peers who work together to care for the members thereof.
By this definition, the entire U.S. is a family, so what's the problem with "handouts"?
Nope, not "all" members of the US care for each other.
See, your definition didn't say anything about "all" members caring for each other.
BTW, does an infant care for anyone? If your definition of "family" requires that all members care for each other, does this mean that an infant can't belong to a family?
A loan is never a handout it is a handup. Free stuff is a handout.
What is "free stuff?" We never get anything for free. We pay for our transportation. We would pay for our health care. I am subsidizing you veteran benefits with each paycheck. All this is is collectivization. We all put a little bit in the communal pot so the society can have nice things to all share, like parks, roads, and even you getting help buying a house.
Free stuff is anything you don't pay for. Note I didn't specify anything as being "free stuff"? I merely pointed out that a loan is not a handout.
It's absolutely a handout. You get much better terms than a non-veteran. What did you do to earn that? Hang out at the motor pool for a couple of years?
Comments
edit: Also, this!
I'm sure many of those craphumping teabaggers would've considered it a "constitutional" issue if they'd been the ones stepped on for showing up at a rally.
As to the chart, didn't Cremlian post one that more effectively showed that Democrat Pres plus Republican Congress equaled deficit reduction? Congress controls the purse strings, try posting a chart that shows who controlled Congress and what the defecits looked like.
I agree that the social cons are a pain and want to control what you do in the bedroom. I don't like them what I also don't like is fiscal liberals who think you can fix anything by throwing money at it. I'm with Gomi on that one. Don't give them more money, make them run more efficiently.
The equivalent on the left would be the greenies. They want to tell me how to live my life just as bad as the social cons.
Yes, I enquired about VA loans, a govt backed benefit that I earned. It's not a handout and I don't begrudge anyone for trying to use something they earned.
Freedom includes the freedom to fail
How does compromise include completely abandoning everything that I have worked on, or believe, and coming to you with a completely blank slate?
I believe that if someone took the time to look up the history, they'd find that the conservatives of the time called all sorts of veteran's programs socialist handouts.
A family is any group of concerned adults and/or peers who work together to care for the members thereof.
It doesn't matter to me how many moms or dads you have, as long as everyone genuinely cares about you you belong to a functional family. Most people belong to multiple familes.
BTW, does an infant care for anyone? If your definition of "family" requires that all members care for each other, does this mean that an infant can't belong to a family?