• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

Is Compromise a Thing of the Past

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • No

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Total voters
    22
BDBoop said:
Dude, I don't even care what you're smoking anymore. Hand it over.
Click to expand...

ok. name one political function, such as a tea party, where acts of violence or vandalism were committed.
as far as me? just say the word, and all link acts of violence and vandalism committed by liberals in wisconsin
and by the SEIU, and quite a few more. ready....set......go.
 
BDBoop said:
Why is that your call?
Click to expand...

Knowing the facts makes it my call. All you appear to want to face is the fear that idiots like Patrick Sharma are putting out.
 
BDBoop said:
Dude, I don't even care what you're smoking anymore. Hand it over.
Click to expand...

What hes saying is true, all the latest some-what out of control protests were form the left.
 
celticwar17 said:
What hes saying is true, all the latest some-what out of control protests were form the left.
Click to expand...

How does that matter? When Obama got elected, people showed up to rallies with rifles! If thats not an overt threat, I don't know what is. Also, what some are saying here about riots is because, if the government shuts down for long periods of time, the credit market will collapse, which is the foundation of our economy. Its why we bailed out wallstreet (it could of been done in a different way)
 
Completely misreading the mood of the country....

Wow.....the Country does NOT want "compromise" with Progressives...they reject them outright.

If the Left brings violence we will match it....don't doubt this..SEIU pigs will reap what they sow.



What if...? said:
Well ya see, the way most "messaging" works is through uniformity and repetition. So all the talking point nonsense we see here every day is going to be EVERYWHERE, turned up to ELEVEN.

The demand on the part of the people for a return to compromise may not occur until after the elections for this reason.

But the Republican candidates are lightening their tone, and Becks off Fox, so there is hope they'll back off to avoid alienating independents.

Time will tell.
Click to expand...
 
xpiher said:
How does that matter? When Obama got elected, people showed up to rallies with rifles! If thats not an overt threat, I don't know what is. Also, what some are saying here about riots is because, if the government shuts down for long periods of time, the credit market will collapse, which is the foundation of our economy. Its why we bailed out wallstreet (it could of been done in a different way)
Click to expand...
what does that matter? the point is: nearly every act of vandalism and violence at a political protest event within the last decade has been committed
by a left wing individual or group. try to excuse or justify it anyway you wish. it's a fact. and really? i'm all for the less subtle forms of protest. i think
it's high time the right wing in this country fired back.....and i do mean that literally.
 
Amazed said:
Completely misreading the mood of the country....

Wow.....the Country does NOT want "compromise" with Progressives...they reject them outright.

If the Left brings violence we will match it....don't doubt this..SEIU pigs will reap what they sow.
Click to expand...

Excellent example of what I am talking about, here:

CaptainCourtesy said:
Nowadays, political parties are only interested in beating the other guy. Not doing what's helpful for American. Neither the left's nor the right's extreme views will work on the problems that we encounter today. Yet, both sides still present them... and try to beat the other side over the head with them, vilifying and demonizing.

George Washington was right.
Click to expand...
 
lewstherin said:
it's high time the right wing in this country fired back.....and i do mean that literally.
Click to expand...

That's simply counter productive. But this isn't the point. The point is we'll have a class war if the checks stop flowing because people won't be able to eat.
 
xpiher said:
That's simply counter productive. But this isn't the point. The point is we'll have a class war if the checks stop flowing because people won't be able to eat.
Click to expand...

and isn't that the entire platform of the democratic party? one of class warfare? it would seem that initiating class
warfare is the very agenda of DC at this time.
 
lewstherin said:
and isn't that the entire platform of the democratic party? one of class warfare? it would seem that initiating class
warfare is the very agenda of DC at this time.
Click to expand...

Its actually preventing class warfare is the DC agenda. Hence their love of welfare.
 
xpiher said:
How does that matter? When Obama got elected, people showed up to rallies with rifles! If thats not an overt threat, I don't know what is. Also, what some are saying here about riots is because, if the government shuts down for long periods of time, the credit market will collapse, which is the foundation of our economy. Its why we bailed out wallstreet (it could of been done in a different way)
Click to expand...

Having a gun in hand and vandalism or acts like threating people to vote you way to push your agenda saying you just won't show up if they are in need if they don't, or something could happen to your business(like a mobster going to business to get them to pay for protection money) are not really the same thing, now are they? No matter what you wish to think liberals have proven since Obama took office that they will do anything to get their way and everyone be damned. A small group of conservatives doing something stupid and not harming a fly is not comparable using any sort of measuring method that I can think of.
 
xpiher said:
Its actually preventing class warfare is the DC agenda. Hence their love of welfare.
Click to expand...

i hope you're joking. the people being duped into this "i'm owed something/slave-entitlement" mentality are essentially
the foot soldiers the democratic party depends on to start their riots. they've created a mob mentality through the
welfare system....not prevented one.
 
Amazed said:
Nothing the "Progressive" Left wants to is "good" for anyone but them.

You are watching what they want in Greece and the UK....you start it, we'll finish it.
Click to expand...

Exactly man. They start to riot when their freebies get taken away and they will be put down like dogs.
 
All you people whining about no compromise should have voted for John McCain.
 
WI Crippler said:
All you people whining about no compromise should have voted for John McCain.
Click to expand...

well, at least we would've had a nice set of tits to look at when the VP spoke.....but the country would still be a ****hole.
it's not like mccain has true american leadership qualities, either.
 
lewstherin said:
well, at least we would've had a nice set of tits to look at when the VP spoke.....but the country would still be a ****hole.
it's not like mccain has true american leadership qualities, either.
Click to expand...

I don't even want to hear people BS and say they would have considered McCain except for Palin. She was hardly known, gave McCain a big boost in the polls, and held her own against Biden in the one VP debate. People didn't really hate her until after. McCain was the prototypical "reach across the aisle" guy, and has several years of practice to back it up. but the left called him Bush III and ran to the coattails of the great orator known as Obama thinking he would "change" things. 99% of liberals that voted for Obama have no claim to cry out for "compromise". That candidate ran, and they didn't vote for him.
 
WI Crippler said:
I don't even want to hear people BS and say they would have considered McCain except for Palin. She was hardly known, gave McCain a big boost in the polls, and held her own against Biden in the one VP debate. People didn't really hate her until after. McCain was the prototypical "reach across the aisle" guy, and has several years of practice to back it up. but the left called him Bush III and ran to the coattails of the great orator known as Obama thinking he would "change" things. 99% of liberals that voted for Obama have no claim to cry out for "compromise". That candidate ran, and they didn't vote for him.
Click to expand...

i agree. if anything, palin was all mccain had going for him. i didn't know of a single person who voted for mccain in the primary.
not one. he was the worst candidate which could've possibly been chosen, which is exactly why the media gave him in-particular,
the high rotation coverage of the gop candidates. it took a man as wishy-washy and sucky as john mccain to completely seal
obama's victory, as soon as the candidates were appointed for election.
 
WI Crippler said:
I don't even want to hear people BS and say they would have considered McCain except for Palin. She was hardly known, gave McCain a big boost in the polls, and held her own against Biden in the one VP debate. People didn't really hate her until after. McCain was the prototypical "reach across the aisle" guy, and has several years of practice to back it up. but the left called him Bush III and ran to the coattails of the great orator known as Obama thinking he would "change" things. 99% of liberals that voted for Obama have no claim to cry out for "compromise". That candidate ran, and they didn't vote for him.
Click to expand...

That is not the impression I got from McCain during that election, he seemed like a guy who bent over backwards to appeal to the extreme members of the GOP. He sacrificed his views to get the nomination, and didn't run on his own beliefs IMO. I did not trust him.
 
He decided not to "criticze" Obama....he believes the GW bype....he wanted Bush's "Immigration" Reform.....he made it clear he had "no use" for "real" Conservatives...you crack me up.....come to the light....



Your Star said:
That is not the impression I got from McCain during that election, he seemed like a guy who bent over backwards to appeal to the extreme members of the GOP. He sacrificed his views to get the nomination, and didn't run on his own beliefs IMO. I did not trust him.
Click to expand...
 
lewstherin said:
i agree. if anything, palin was all mccain had going for him. i didn't know of a single person who voted for mccain in the primary.
not one. he was the worst candidate which could've possibly been chosen, which is exactly why the media gave him in-particular,
the high rotation coverage of the gop candidates. it took a man as wishy-washy and sucky as john mccain to completely seal
obama's victory, as soon as the candidates were appointed for election.
Click to expand...

Well I don't necessarily agree. In hindsight I don't like Palin as a VP, but at the time she did no damage to McCain and actually helped him. I think McCain would have been an ok president. I like that he is open to compromise, but he always compromised on things I didn't agree with him on like immigration and McCain-Feingold.
 
Your Star said:
That is not the impression I got from McCain during that election, he seemed like a guy who bent over backwards to appeal to the extreme members of the GOP. He sacrificed his views to get the nomination, and didn't run on his own beliefs IMO. I did not trust him.
Click to expand...

I never saw McCain do anything that made me think he was appealing to any extreme segment of our population.
 
WI Crippler said:
I don't even want to hear people BS and say they would have considered McCain except for Palin.
Click to expand...

The only reason I voted was because McCain picked Palin. Before Palin, I would have been happy for either of them to win. Since he picked Palin, I voted for Obama. The reason? It showed pure pandering, more than him regneggin on McCain of 2000.

WI Crippler said:
I never saw McCain do anything that made me think he was appealing to any extreme segment of our population.
Click to expand...

Except abandon every position he held in 2000.
 
Seems to be a thing of the past....right out of the mouth of the teaparty....We will stand by our principles and We wont compromise.....their principles are take from the middle working class and give to the rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom