• 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
Its all well and good to throw out blanket "sources" and claim they justify whatever position it is one attempting to "prove"

racism

Prove it....show us how we are ALL Racist, it's your assetion.

homophobia

See above....

xenophobia

See above.....

Just do your own research on the positions of Ron and Rand Paul and you will find out much more.

Really? You want to prove they are the forefront of Party?


haymarket said:
racism
homophobia
xenophobia
and pretty much attempting to destroy and roll back almost every political reform of the 20th century

Just do your own research on the positions of Ron and Rand Paul and you will find out much more. But I suspect you know this going in.

you can begin here

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idaho GOP Approves Far-Right Platform: Repeal 17th Amendment, Buy Gold And Silver | TPMDC

the tea party platform

Sarah Palin's 9 Most Disturbing Beliefs | | AlterNet

Platform | Libertarian Party

you are now officially on your own.
Click to expand...
 
Btw hay, you were supposed to argue against republicans in general not Ron, Rand or Sarah Palin. You didn't really do that yet. I willing to admit that Ron, Rand, and Sarah are radical in their own ways, but is the republican party in general?
 
Last edited:
hay thinks that we think in a "monolithic" manor.....

Henrin said:
Btw hay, you were supposed to argue against republicans in general not Ron, Rand or Sarah Palin. You didn't really do that yet. I willing to admit that Ron, Rand, and Sarah are radical in their own ways, but is the republican party in general?
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
hay thinks that we think in a "monolithic" manor.....
Click to expand...

Most repubs certainly act in a monolithic manner

Amazed said:
You start with the premise that the "people" NEED the Gov....I start with the premise that the Gov "needs" the people.

The Gov creaets NOTHING....
Click to expand...

You have no idea what I support and don't support because you vision is obscured by your own bias. My premsis is that some form of government is needed in order to keep order. Men aren't angels.

Anyways, Ron and Rand have a good basis for their opinion. They aren't repubs though. They are libertarian. Most repubs are corporate shrills just like a lot of dems are "labor" shrills.
 
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
 
Zyphlin said:
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
Click to expand...

The owners do, but David Stern doesn't.
 
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?
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
OhIsee.Then said:
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?
Click to expand...

Beats me. Does it make sense to/for you?
 
jamesrage said:
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. .
Click to expand...

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:
DemonMyst said:
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..
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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.
Click to expand...


The reccession had been in full swing for tust less than a year....9/11, Freddie and Fannie.....you are believeing the "wrong" history.
 
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:
BDBoop said:
Beats me. Does it make sense to/for you?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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...

Extreme to some of the people, such as You Star, means solidly right ring.

Moderate Conservatives are "normal republicans", Strong conservatives are "extreme", ACTUAL extreme people get labeled extreme as wel tieing them to strong conservatives. Moderates and strong liberals are "average" while extreme liberals are "Very liberal".

Gotta remember, when talking with some of our most partisan left leaning posters, you've got to skew the scale to their view point. McCain attempted to appeal to conservatives by favoring some social issues and not wanting to raise taxes on the rich, thus he's "EXTREME" because you know...a rational look at the political spectrum in this country definitely puts that on the "extreme" end :roll:
 
xpiher said:
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.
Click to expand...

And Obama picking an old, washington elite, white guy liberal hawk was....an honest and truthful pick of who he thought would do the job best?

:rofl:

Guess what, EVERY Presidential candidate generally panders with their VP pick and does it for political reasons. If you think Obama's pick of Biden was anything but cold calculated political strategy I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you.
 
What if...? said:
I'm sorry, don't progressives make up a substantial percentage of the "Country"?

"We won, so **** what you want" is no way to run a country. (Except into the ground).
Click to expand...

So what, you're saying that stating "We won, so on that issue I trump you." would be no way to run a country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom