View Poll Results: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 39.13%
  • No

    11 47.83%
  • Not Sure

    1 4.35%
  • Other

    2 8.70%
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 93

Thread: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

  1. #81
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    Not until the 11th hour.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  2. #82
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    People only compromise if a compromised solution is significantly getter than the status quo. For example, in the NBA, the owners stand to lose more money by NOT having a season rather than having one, so they have little incentive to compromise unlessna compromise is one HEAVILY in their favor
    The owners do, but David Stern doesn't.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #83
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    BDBoop, you got your best description of compromise in the Jamesrage post #16. With compromise rules so carefully laid out: firm, exact and right position right out of the book and anything less is not compromise. Others attempted to explain compromise, but were right first and not nearly as detailed in being right. Did I get this right or just correct?
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I say no. However you got to realize that sometimes a compromise is not a compromise if you are not getting anything in return. Lowering the debt for example requires lots of cuts and a change in spending, you do not do that by raising taxes because the only thing tax increases do is give the government more of an excuse to spend more. If you are opposed to illegal immigration then the one you do not do is cave into amnesty because amnesty is like adding more fuel to the fire seeing how it encourages more illegal immigration. If you are pro-2nd amendment then the last thing you do is cave to any restrictions because restrictions further restrict the right and pave the way for more restrictions. If you are against tax increases then any bill calling for tax increases would not be a compromise.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    BDBoop, you got your best description of compromise in the Jamesrage post #16. With compromise rules so carefully laid out: firm, exact and right position right out of the book and anything less is not compromise. Others attempted to explain compromise, but were right first and not nearly as detailed in being right. Did I get this right or just correct?
    Beats me. Does it make sense to/for you?

  5. #85
    Educator DemonMyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA.
    Last Seen
    02-11-13 @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    727

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I say no. However you got to realize that sometimes a compromise is not a compromise if you are not getting anything in return. Lowering the debt for example requires lots of cuts and a change in spending, you do not do that by raising taxes because the only thing tax increases do is give the government more of an excuse to spend more. .
    See here is the error in your post.. You are forgetting that when Bush took office he had a Budget surplus.. He lowered taxes and then went to war on two nations.. What is wrong with returning the tax levels to when we had the surplus?? You are forgeting that tax cuts helped dig this hole we are in.. It stands to reason that returning them to previous levels would be a good idea.. I fail to see other than complete stupidity, how you don't understand or agree with that..

    Bush had a great economy, he had a surplus and a means to pay down the debt.. I'll give him 9/11 and stuff.. But after 9/11 he should have dropped the tax cuts knowing that we would have to increase spending to fight two wars.. How can anyone now see that?? Instead he increased spending and cut the government's pay by $320 billion a year.. He didn't even put the wars on the budget, he simply threw them onto the debt..

    The fact here is that you simply have no arguement for the tax cuts.. It take gradeschool math to figure that one out..

    The simply truth here is we need to at the very least return taxes to the Clinton levels, if not a little more to pay for the wars.. We also need to increase spending a little to help get the economy going.. I'm sorry but tax cuts for the rich is not working.. Where are the jobs?? Cutting spending in the matter than conservatives want hurt the economy even more and further their near constant attack on middle class..

    Face.. We all know that conservatives want to destroy the economy in attempts to take back the whitehouse, so you can then destroy it even further for your own gains.. It is plainly obvious.. If you really had the welfare of your fellow americans at heart, you wouldn't be so worried about the rich paying their fair share of the taxes.. We all know your lips are fimply planted on the butts of the oil companies and billionares that donate to your campaigns..
    Last edited by DemonMyst; 07-04-11 at 12:54 AM.

  6. #86
    Educator lewstherin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 02:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    719

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by DemonMyst View Post
    See here is the error in your post.. You are forgetting that when Bush took office he had a Budget surplus.. He lowered taxes and then went to war on two nations.. What is wrong with returning the tax levels to when we had the surplus?? You are forgeting that tax cuts helped dig this hole we are in.. It stands to reason that returning them to previous levels would be a good idea.. I fail to see other than complete stupidity, how you don't understand or agree with that..

    Bush had a great economy, he had a surplus and a means to pay down the debt.. I'll give him 9/11 and stuff.. But after 9/11 he should have dropped the tax cuts knowing that we would have to increase spending to fight two wars.. How can anyone now see that?? Instead he increased spending and cut the government's pay by $320 billion a year.. He didn't even put the wars on the budget, he simply threw them onto the debt..

    The fact here is that you simply have no arguement for the tax cuts.. It take gradeschool math to figure that one out..
    in case it may have slipped your mind.....there was a recession happening when bush took office.
    i know that clouds your visions of sugar plums and fairies, in regards to clinton....but there it is anyway.
    “The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.”
    http://www.indylevee.com/

  7. #87
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    You are forgetting that when Bush took office he had a Budget surplus..

    "Projected" surplus, nothing was real....

    [B]You are forgeting that tax cuts helped dig this hole we are in.. It stands to reason that returning them to previous levels would be a good idea.. I fail to see other than complete stupidity, how you don't understand or agree with that.. /B]

    That's because you live in a very cafrefully constructed box....you think/believe therefore it MUST be true.

    The fact here is that you simply have no arguement for the tax cuts.. It take gradeschool math to figure that one out..

    See? You assume it is a "revenue" problem because thats what you've been told...it isn't as ALWAYS it's a "spending" problem.

    Face.. We all know that conservatives want to destroy the economy in attempts to take back the whitehouse, so you can then destroy it even further for your own gains.. It is plainly obvious.. If you really had the welfare of your fellow americans at heart, you wouldn't be so worried about the rich paying their fair share of the taxes.. We all know your lips are fimply planted on the butts of the oil companies and billionares that donate to your campaigns..

    One might do well to read other sources than those of the Left....seriously you sound like the perfect little parrot.
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  8. #88
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by Amazed View Post
    You are forgetting that when Bush took office he had a Budget surplus..

    "Projected" surplus, nothing was real....

    [B]You are forgeting that tax cuts helped dig this hole we are in.. It stands to reason that returning them to previous levels would be a good idea.. I fail to see other than complete stupidity, how you don't understand or agree with that.. /B]

    That's because you live in a very cafrefully constructed box....you think/believe therefore it MUST be true.

    The fact here is that you simply have no arguement for the tax cuts.. It take gradeschool math to figure that one out..

    See? You assume it is a "revenue" problem because thats what you've been told...it isn't as ALWAYS it's a "spending" problem.

    Face.. We all know that conservatives want to destroy the economy in attempts to take back the whitehouse, so you can then destroy it even further for your own gains.. It is plainly obvious.. If you really had the welfare of your fellow americans at heart, you wouldn't be so worried about the rich paying their fair share of the taxes.. We all know your lips are fimply planted on the butts of the oil companies and billionares that donate to your campaigns..

    One might do well to read other sources than those of the Left....seriously you sound like the perfect little parrot.
    The reccession had been in full swing for tust less than a year....9/11, Freddie and Fannie.....you are believeing the "wrong" history.
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  9. #89
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    I posted: BDBoop, you got your best description of compromise in the Jamesrage post #16. With compromise rules so carefully laid out: firm, exact and right position right out of the book and anything less is not compromise. Others attempted to explain compromise, but were right first and not nearly as detailed in being right. Did I get this right or just correct?

    You asked:
    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    Beats me. Does it make sense to/for you?
    Yes, it makes sense in as much the Jamesrage post is revealing, informative and honest. The revealing, informative and honest is what one would hope for. And there are other samples in this thread. My post was to be a bit funny while pointing out that this version of compromise is very right. Damn, I did it again. People think there is symmetry in the right and left methodologies of negotiating and stating the shortcomings of a position that is being challenged. However, if you go through your thread, you’ll find a lack of symmetry between the left and right on what is the functional definition of compromise. The words are thought to have the same meaning but don’t, making communication difficult.

  10. #90
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

    Compromise happens when both sides give up something, even if that means one side loses more in relation to the other side's gain. The former side has more bargaining power and should use it to bring it closer to their issue, but flatly refusing to compromise gives the latter side more political power. With the current debt ceiling, the problem lies in the fact that if we do not compromise or reach some sort of decision to raise the debt ceiling, the finical market will collapse. The dems have already given plenty, 2trillion in cuts which is very close to the repub number. The dems are asking in return for closing of some special tax breaks. The repubs are refusing. If it comes down to the wire in this stupid game of chicken, the dems will come out on top. So either the repubs can close some special tax breaks, and lose a little with their base or not compromise at all and lose with everyone else and serious put the world through hell.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •