In the previous thread Robin Naismith Green ended a comment with the following question:
Enough blame how about some action and cooperation between the parties?
To which I responded:
Robin, the Tea Party is forcing the GOP to trend to the right at the same time that the Democrat Party has lurched violently to the left. I’m not sure how you get cooperation between such polar opposites. For example, which of the principles that guide your thinking would you be willing to compromise on? Which of our principles do you think we should compromise on. What is the ultimate goal if we both give up a little? Specifically, can you picture a country where we all get along, and how would you accomplish that when we clearly don’t want the same things. Would the ultimate compromise be to make each of us equally miserable?
And then Amazona added:
Good question. But you need to ask the right questions first. For example, the first step toward working together is agreeing on a goal. Cooperation happens when both sides agree on a goal and then only have to find ways to achieve that goal, which usually involves some give-and-take. What we are seeing, and have seen for quite some time, is goals being thrown under the bus in favor of gross and blatant demagoguery.
Example: Let’s say the Left says its goal is to feed poor children. The Right agrees, this is a worthy goal. Therefore, the next step ought to be rational discussion about how best to do this. But what happens is, the Left says there is one way to do this and only one way, their way, which happens to totally contradict the Right’s objective political philosophy, so letting the Left have its way would not be compromise, it would be capitulation.
So poor children do not get fed. BUT….the true goal of the Left is met, which was never the feeding of poor children but the demonizing of the Right, because once the Right has walked away from an entirely dogmatic and unacceptable position the Left can then trumpet its claim that the Right doesn’t care if children go hungry. And this was the intent from the get-go.
So if you truly want cooperation and true compromise, drop the either/or paradigm, and agree that the goals are shared and the only thing left is to figure out how to meet them.
We often talk about compromise. Compromise used to be the glue that held our government together and made it work. It was an historic compromise back in 1983 that extended the solvency of Social Security by 2 decades. But when George Bush attempted to reform and save Social Security again early in his first term, saying publicly that EVERYTHING was on the table, compromise was nowhere to be found. It appeared to anyone who was paying attention that for Democrats, the campaign value of being able to say that Republicans wanted to destroy Social Security was greater than actually fixing the program for future generations.
So when exactly did compromise die? And, unless you’re living under a rock, you’d have to admit that, if it’s not dead, it’s at least in a coma. Many on the Left cite Newt Gingrich as the single individual who banished compromise from the D.C. lexicon, and in some respects, they would be right. But David Axelrod’s reference to Gingrich as the Godfather of Gridlock notwithstanding, Gingrich’s compromises with Bill Clinton probably accomplished more in terms of historical, meaningful legislation than any Speaker in my lifetime:
So what did Clinton and Gingrich accomplish during this era of (relatively) good feelings? Here are a few notable bills, each of which passed with broad, bipartisan majorities.
Telecommunications Act, 1996 — described by the Federal Communications Commission as “the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years.” The House passed the final version of the bill by a 414-16 margin, with 236 Republicans and 178 Democrats supporting it.
Welfare reform, 1996 — a landmark bill to end cash payments and instead encourage recipients to find work. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 328-101 margin, with 230 Republicans and 98 Democrats.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 1996 — a law that allowed people to change jobs without fearing the loss of their health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, as well as provisions dealing with health information privacy. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 421-2 margin, with 227 Republicans and 193 Democrats.
Taxpayer Relief Act, 1997 — which established a child tax credit, tuition tax credits, and penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs for education expenses and first-home purchases, as well as a decrease in the capital gains tax and limitations on the estate tax. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 389-43 margin, with 225 Republicans and 164 Democrats.
Balanced Budget Act, 1997 — a bill that cut spending in order to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 346-85 margin, with 193 Republicans and 153 Democrats.
My feeling is that today’s lack of compromise is the result of two dynamics: distrust between the parties and the wide chasm that separates their respective agendas. I’m not sure exactly when the distrust factor entered the picture (at least in terms of modern-day politics), but a good guess would be the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA).
The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, most of the president’s colleagues signed on. He disliked the tax hikes, of course, but he agreed to it as well.
You don’t have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized. After the tax bill passed, some legislators of both parties even claimed that there had been no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio.
So the question remains: how do we get compromise back? Or maybe a better question: do we want it back?
Blogs For Victory 
It appeared to anyone who was paying attention that for Democrats, the campaign value of being able to say that Republicans wanted to destroy Social Security was greater than actually fixing the program for future generations.
I thought at the time that of equal consideration for the Democrats was the fact that there was simply no way they were going to let the saving of one of the pet Democratic programs of all times be perceived to have been accomplished or even suggested by Republicans. But then, inexplicably, only 4 years later Democrats had a nearly veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, and still didn’t do squat to save Social Security. In fact, their only idea regarding Social Security since has been to drive it into insolvency faster.
As I said in my earlier comment, the first step toward true compromise is agreement on the desired goal. Not on the STATED goal, which is too often not the true goal of an agenda or program.
A perfect case in point is the Clinton decree, in the last days of his presidency, reducing the allowable amount of arsenic in drinking water. The STATED goal was to increase the safety of America’s drinking water and reduce the number of deaths attributed to the ingestion of arsenic through water.
However, the REAL goal, which soon became apparent, was to set up a no-win situation for incoming President George W. Bush.
There was no scientific evidence that the allowable limit for arsenic in drinking water was too high to be safe. The Clinton administration had been quite comfortable with the allowable limit for its entire two terms in office. But this last-minute trickery served to put the new President, and by extension his entire party, in the position of either allowing the change to go forward in spite of its cost to the nation due to the necessary revamping of water treatment facilities, with absolutely no scientific proof for the necessity of such a radical change, or reversing the ruling and thereby becoming the target of accusations ranging from indifference to the welfare of the nation to being bought off by special interest groups.
A perfect example of the success of this tactic can be seen in an excerpt from The Philadelphia Inquirer: (emphasis mine)
March 21, 2001|By Seth Borenstein INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON — President Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency yesterday scrapped last-minute Clinton administration plans to sharply cut the amount of arsenic permitted in the nation’s drinking water.
The Clinton rule was made final Jan. 17. His EPA said it would prevent from 38 to 56 cases of cancer each year at an annual cost of $181 million.
The current EPA administrator, Christie Whitman, concluded that the cost was too high and the science too flimsy. The action leaves the United States with one of the most permissive arsenic regulations in the world.
Environmentalists and public-health officials attacked the decision. It was praised by the mining industry and officials from states where arsenic is in the water supply.
It prompted hysterical headlines such as this:
Bush Mandates Arsenic in Your Tap Water
Even Ralph Nader commented: ( http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/arsenic-levels-in-water-a-clinton-trap/)
“Clinton issued these standards just before he left office in all these areas…And he did it for two reasons: his historic legacy, and to lay a trap for George W. Bush. And he fell right into it.”
Authors Irvine and Kincaid went on to point out: “The major media have fallen into the same trap, failing to expose Clinton’s cynical ploy and failing to correct the impression that the level of arsenic permitted in our water is too high.”
Efforts to engage in rational and objective analysis of the issue (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n3/specialreport) were few and far between, and Bush and the Republican Party were branded as cold-blooded, callous, and in the pockets of special interests.
Not only was “compromise” not possible in this case, it was not desired, as the goal was not to improve the quality of our drinking water but to set up a situation in which opposition to an unreasonable demand could be spun by the Left and its Complicit Agenda Media into an indictment of the Right.
The democratic party has been hi jacked by the far left, and until they shed that component of the party, there will never be compromise. How do you compromise with this:
“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor. – Harry Reid
The democrats simply ignore reality in favor of promoting their agenda and their own personal desire to retain power. They are not looking out for America, rather they are looking out for themselves, and those are people you do not want to compromise with. Wisconsin is another good example – rather then accepting the desires of the WI voters in 2010, and acknowledging the positive results of Walkers reforms, the democratic left threw a temper tantrum and forced a recall. And now, instead of acknowledging once again the desires of the WI voters, they continue to blame “big money” and vow to keep up the fight – so again, the democrats are a very narrow, selfish party incapable of thinking of anyone else other than themselves. How do you compromise with that?
And one thing that escapes the understanding of so many is that compromise is only possible when it does not demand the complete abandonment of deeply held moral and philosophic principles.
For example, if a true goal is, as I said in my earlier post, to feed hungry children, there are many ways to do this, but a demand that this be done by the federal government will require abandoning Constitutional principles for agreement from conservatives. So many options can be presented, none of which involve the federal government, but if one side is absolutely adamant that the ONLY approach they will consider is a plan funded by the federal government THEY have made compromise impossible.
And, in so doing, set up a gotcha such as the one I just described regarding the arsenic fiasco.
By the way, this is only effective when assisted by a complicit agenda media, which refuses to engage in objective reporting (what USED to be called ‘journalism’) and instead uses the power of the press to support one political model and undermine when not actually attacking the other.
The media is not only a willing partner with the democrats, I believe they actually lead the way on many occasions. WI is another good example of that. One democratic senator won last Tuesday shifting the balance of power in the state senate, of which the media has promoted as a great win stating that they can now challenge Walker’s agenda. However, at the federal level, when the GOP house challenges Obama’s agenda, that is called obstructionism in the media, so once again results do not matter to the far left, it is only focused on having power, and you can not compromise with myopic, selfish people.
One democratic senator won last Tuesday shifting the balance of power in the state senate, of which the media has promoted as a great win stating that they can now challenge Walker’s agenda.
One of the most partisan media outlets, CNN actually had a truthful, reality-based take on that one senate seat.
I ran across this rather humorous blog post after the fact, and it says a lot about those for whom compromise is the first resort:
Voters buy what you’re selling or they don’t.
Or, in the case of Dems, they think they’re buying what the Dems are selling, only to find a bait-and-switch when they learn that the single issue that suckered them in is tied to a whole ideology about which they are ignorant and probably not in agreement..
This is why I constantly harp on IDEOLOGY. We need to know not just what a certain candidate thinks on a certain issue, but the underlying political philosophy which he or she will be representing.
As for “….what’s yours is yours and what’s mine is negotiable…” that is a pretty good summation of what the Left thinks of compromise. When I hear a Lefty whine about “compromise” I know that what he really means is “Give me what I want now and I’ll be back later for more”.
Another obstacle to compromise is the democrats either/or paradigms that they constantly construct, and of which was a subject of a thread not too long ago. When you have a democratic president stating that the republicans are advocating for dirty air, and throwing seniors over a cliff all because they won’t support his agenda, then I think any chance for compromise has been lost.
Atheistic marxism and Freedom loving Christianity are incomparable.
as is islam.
One darkness bondage and death
One light, life,and freedom.
clear lines are being drawn, you can not have one foot on either side of the lines. You are FOR one and against the other.
Nothing in this story to relate it to politics or Democrats. //Moderator
Neo, you are so right. You have to make your choice on which side of the fence you want to be on. Thats all there ever was to it.
Shades of gray? Baloney.
Mistakenly deleted your post as well. Sorry. It’s a busy day in Blogville. //Moderator
GMB
EXACTLY!! my point!!
You either fight your enemy on all fronts or you will loose the war. The “new tone” and talk of compromise are one way streets only and they both go leftwards.
I am willing to compromise with other conservatives on what our priorities should be. Yes lets go ahead and focus on financial issues first. Lets get some semblance of balanced budget in place first.
The social issues will be addressed. Yes they will, sooner or later the repubs will have to. If they want us to keep voting for them they will.
Then how about you put the post back up. ??? If it was a mistake that is.
Sorry if you think my comment was a lie. If we wanted the post gone I would not have explained and apologized. It was an honest mistake and I am not now at a computer that will let me go back to find the post. Please repost if you like. //Moderator
Compromise only becomes an issue when it is convenient for the donks. Where was this talk of compromise 2009-11 when the donks had total control of Congress? Where will this talk of compromise be if it should happen again?
Long answer. Robin and her kind will not be talking compromise should the donks be totally in charge again.
The only people the repubs need to worry about are the ones who elected them to office. We did not elect them to appropriate money for bridges to nowhere or bullet trains headed for the same place. We did not elect them so they could turn off the water to farmers in California’s central valley or to the citizens of Tombstone, Arizona.
We did not elect them so they could shirk their duty and form super committees.
Depending on which estimate you want to believe, the total debt of the United States is somewhere between 120 and 200 trillion dollars. Which way do you personally want to see that debt go. Bigger or smaller?
Robin, which issues are you ready to compromise on? Are you ready to compromise on Social Security and Medicare? Are you willing to allow those of us who want to opt out of these programs the “choice” to do so? I doubt it.
The only people the repubs need to compromise with are the the ones that put them into office. The compromise only involves how much they are willing to cut out of this monster of a federal budget.
Wait and see.
Your tax dollars are paying for this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577454823411436702.html
Enough is enough.
how do you compromise with this??
Van Jones Issues Dire Warning: The Tea Party Will Use Power to ‘Decimate Us’
“their ideas already are corrupting the Supreme Court”
or THIS??
‘We Don’t Want to Offend Other Cultures’: N.Y. Principal Reportedly Scraps ‘God Bless the USA’ From School Program
But Justin Bieber’s “Baby” is OK.
Blog rules are clear and have been explained to you many times. Follow them or do not post. //Moderator
There is no fear involved. You consistently exhibit homosexual bigotry and this will not be tolerated. Your efforts to make this policy about fear on the part of moderators is very similar to arguments made by leftist posters here. You might want to think about that. No more homosexual bigotry. Period. //Moderator
A question for those that are conservatives here. On what issues are you willing to compromise on that will take this country further to the left? Myself I can not think of any. Which should be of no surprise to anyone. 🙂
GMB
seems only the PC issues.
Whining about policy duly noted. //Moderator
2 Timothy 4:3-4
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”
we compromised on abortion which led to the slaughter of 53,000,000. Americans.
there is no compromise with evil.
the donk idea of compromise
School District Confirms ‘Schindler’s List’ Producer Was Disinvited From Speaking to Graduates for Being Conservative
“The high school principal made the decision based on his point of view.”
GMB, I’d be willing to compromise on cutting the size of the federal budget between big cuts and bigger cuts. Other than that, I can’t think of anything, certainly not an issue whose goal it is to move the country further to the left.
Then you better be prepared for one hell of a fight. And yes it will be a fight. The communists among us believe they have a right to other peoples wealth.
No if ands or buts about it. They will fight tooth and nail to hang on to OPM. Hey it beats real work.
GMB
a good read
Liberty values
By Tim Dunkin
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/120610
I don’t think I would be willing to compromise anything at the federal level as those duties are explicitly spelled out in the constitution. However, i guess that being said, i do think that programs like SS & Medicare are programs that have become institutionalized and do help, so on that matter I would be willing to compromise and leave those programs in place provided that they are reformed and made sustainable. State governments are a different matter though. If the state of Mass. wants government health care and abortion on demand, then I say that is there right, although I disagree.
However, re: Medicare, that’s a program that can be block granted to the states, which would lessen the costs and make the program more effective, so maybe that is that way to go with Medicare.
Please provide one constitutional basis for the federal government to be involved in these programs. If one is going to give in because something has become “institutionalized” then you better be ready to accept the fact than communism is going to be the law of this land.
It is “institutionalized” in every level of our educational system, in the donk party, and increasingly in the repub party. It is their “natural right” to rule over the proletariat.
Give me the option to leave those systems. Let those that want to be proles be proles. Let those who want to be free be free.
Unlike Cluster, and more along the lines of GMB–I would freeze everything in the Federal government and then hand everything not enumerated in the Constitution to the States including all monies. Then States can figure out what they are to obligated to do and slash everything else leaving it to the people.
In my book there is nothing to big to fail or slash.
spook
ditto
Like I said, I would block grant Medicare to the states and let each individual state decide if they wanted it or not. I am unsure what level SS should be at, but I think it can serve good role. I would means test it and would want it administered at the most local level possible as well, but would keep it in tact whether at the state or federal level.
I would be willing to compromise on the block grant issue. I will give you your block grants and you will allow me to opt out of the system.
Can we agree on that?
I could definitely support an opt out program. As far as SS goes, look at what’s being done in Galveston, TX. Google “social security and Galveston”, and read about that program. I don’t think you would want to opt out of that one.
See watson? See how easy compromise is? Maybe you communist/socialist/progressives should try it.
I am not holding my breath. 😛
Block grants are nice but what I would like to see is the Federal government doing those duties enumerated to it in the Constitution and everything else (eg. Education, SSN-like services, EPA, Energy, etc.) handled, if need be, at State level.
All monies are immediately transferred and when I pay taxes next year–the majority would be written to my State (NC) and a pittance would go to the Federal government. If I don’t like the level or standards of my State–I will then be able to vote with my feet as was intended if voting at the ballot box does not remedy the matter.
wow
moderator is the man…..for at least this 5min of b4v’s life
says to neo “no more homosexual bigotry”
cool
but now what’s he going to talk about?
::))
Spoken by someone who has never contributed on meaningful word to this blog.
And people want to compromise with he/she/it.
GMB
@nanu nanu …….Spoken by someone who has never contributed on meaningful word to this blog.
YUP!!
“bigotry” is an OPINION,
SIN is NOT!!
nor is capitulating to it…
Many decades ago, a favorite public high school teacher wrote weekly passages on the blackboard for her students to commit to memory, copy and to consider during the current week. One such memorable passage came from Van Dyke:
“Four Things”
“FOUR things a man must learn to do
If he would make his record true:
To think without confusion clearly;
To love his fellow man sincerely;
To act from honest motives purely;
To trust in God and Heaven securely.”
Henry Van Dyke
Boy Scout Oath or Promise
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.
Note that the Boy Scout Oath has traditionally been considered to have three promises. Those three promises are delineated by the semicolons in the Oath, which divide it into three clauses. The three promises of the Scout Oath are, therefore:
•Duty to God and country,
•Duty to other people, and
•Duty to self
DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your family and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God.
Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country’s good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points.
DUTY TO OTHER PEOPLE: Many people need help. A cheery smile and a helping hand make life easier for others. By doing a Good Turn daily and helping when you’re needed, you prove yourself a Scout and do your part to make this a better world.
DUTY TO SELF: Keeping yourself physically strong means taking care of your body. Eat the right foods and build your strength. Staying mentally awake means learn all you can, be curious, and ask questions. Being morally straight means to live your life with honesty, to be clean in your speech and actions, and to be a person of strong character.
Boy Scout Law
A Scout is:
•Trustworthy,
•Loyal,
•Helpful,
•Friendly,
•Courteous,
•Kind,
•Obedient,
•Cheerful,
•Thrifty,
•Brave,
•Clean,
•and Reverent.
Girl Scouts leadership: pro-choice, pro-gay ideologues
Mary Hasson
Your history of pushing back when called to order by posting everything you can with the banned subject matter in it has been noted. You will not get far with this game playing and there has been a moderator discussion about it. Push it and you will be cut off. //Moderator
hmmmmm
2 Timothy 4:3-4
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”
well at least gmb, neo…we now have something in common….
::))
yes you are a Moron and now we all concur.
Something in common? I don’t think so. It is pretty clear where both Neo and I stand on the issues. It is not clear on anything about you.
Just where do you stand and what are you willing to compromise on?
Time for another name change there bagni?
how do you compromise with insanity??
School Bans Student’s Rosary Over Fears it Could Be a Gang Symbol
i know i’m late to the party on this topic, but do you guys remember during the bush years when the republicans had control of both houses…the democrates ( and i remember hillary clinton) complained about “minority rights”! they whined in front of the cameras that their voice wasn’t being heard by the big bad wepubwicans. they should get a say because they were in the minority.
but as soon as the dems got full power, zerobama himself said that the republicans could come along for the ride, but had to sit in the back.
you see, there is no compromise. there is winning and losing. and it’s not party but ideas that have to be fought for/over and won. it’s like rush says with regards to compromising with terrorists…how do you compromise with someone who wants you dead?
it’s the same thing with libs, they don’t want to compromise, they want conservatism eradicated.
One of the most hypocritical regurgitated proggy lines just after Jan 20, 2009 was “You lost, get over it.”
You would see that on many blogs, even here!
As you said, obAMATEUR and the proggy looters would do whatever they pleased, including dirty arm twisting, bribery with federal judge positions, money to their state, etc. etc., to get their schemes passed. When one of us would bring up the “minority rights”, the mindless proggy drones would just chant “you lost, get over it!”
Then when the proggies lost the House in 2010, the whining of “compromise” started again. They are still whining. Where is the compromise, when Harry Reid tables all non-proggy legislation passed through the House? Where is the “minority rights” in the Senate?
Typical proggies…. you give them what they want and they will take it. Your requests however fall on deaf ears.
Spook said, “GMB, I’d be willing to compromise on cutting the size of the federal budget between big cuts and bigger cuts. Other than that, I can’t think of anything, certainly not an issue whose goal it is to move the country further to the left.”
So, then your answer to your own question is no, you do not want to compromise. Compromise to you means accepting some of the things you want instead of all the things you want, so long as the other side gets nothing. Why did you even bother to write this post? Compromise is obviously dead to you.
“Compromise is obviously dead to you.” That’s because there is no compromise with people like you. Never has been, never will be. You are out for all the OPM you can get and we are out to stop you.
Not hard to understand at all is it?
Watson, if you are a liberal in the mode of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, then there is no compromise to be had. However, if you are a democrat in the mode of Evan Bayh and Joe Manchin, then we can talk.
The far left needs to be removed from the democratic party.
In Watson’s normal response is “So, then your answer to your own question is no, you do not want to compromise. Compromise to you means accepting some of the things you want instead of all the things you want, so long as the other side gets nothing. Why did you even bother to write this post? Compromise is obviously dead to you.” yet seems to mention nothing that s/he was willing to compromise on. Hmmm, answer a question with a question–the hidey-hole of the unthinking or those not willing to comprise themselves.
And to save you the trouble–I am willing to compromise on anything and everything as long as it follows the original Constitutional mandates and enumerated duties.
Why did you even bother to write this post?
To give folks like you a chance to say what kinds of issues and policies you’d be willing to compromise on, Watson. As usual, you failed — miserably. Why did you even bother to comment?
Watty, how can a party (GOP), which stands closer to the Constitution, compromise with a bunch of proggies (DEMOCRATS) who feel the Constitution is a hindrance, an annoying piece of paper, which blocks them from implementing their utopian ideas???
Face the FACTS there watty. Democrats only mention “compromise” when they are out of power (as in the House) and can’t get what they want. The word COMPROMISE, to the DEMOCRATS had no meaning to them Jan 20, 2009 to Jan 20, 2011.
Try again drone, without so much whining.
Watson. You are hereby invited to hop on the compromise bus. However you have to sit in the back. I will warn you however that there will a fight and guns will be involved, so it would be best to leave your knife at home.
When this fight is over we aim to reward our friends and punish our enemies.
You going to just sit there or are you getting on?
I will warn you however that there will a fight and guns will be involved, so it would be best to leave your knife at home.
This is the kind of crap that makes me realize that many who claim to be conservative are no better than the Liberals they oppose. Thugs are thugs no matter which political ideal they claim to hold.
Gleeful anticipation of violence and threats of same should be the venue of thugs like the SEIU, not of thinking Constitutional Conservatives.
I am in the middle of my first hay harvest of the season so haven’t been on the blog for a couple of days, but when I scanned it during lunch I saw so much crap from what is supposed to be the conservative side I joked that since the PL trolls are so silent evidently some of our own have decided to fill in for them. Evidently neo has been totally out of control, and then this BS about guns being involved just drags the blog down.
What’s wrong with dealing with ideas instead of hate and hyperbole? It’s as if , if there are no trolls on the blog, some of you have to fill in for them.
LOL Amazona, have you no memory at all? Do you want the the links to these words.. These are the words of Barak Hussein Obama
Again I will provide the links if you so request.
LOL GMB so Obama is your standard for political and civil discourse?
No he is not. I do believe the use of barkys own words show how much his side is interested in civil discourse.
About as interested as you.
ama
Evidently neo has been totally out of control,
WRONG,
just censored, but hey no compromise eh?
Amazona actually nailed it – you can only compromise when you want the same ultimate result. Left and right in the United States fundamentally want to go different places. For us on the right, the general brief is a restoration of the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution – for the left, the ultimate goal is to make a social democracy akin to those in Europe. Our model is what Madison and Jefferson created – their model is what Clement Atlee’s Labour Party created in post-War Britain.
It is, in a certain sense, irrelevant who is right – the two sides cannot be made to meet. We cannot have, say, a genuinely federal system if there is also a national health care system. The only thing a State or local government can be under a social democracy is a transmission belt for central commands. We, on our side, want the States and localities to be able to reject the federal mandate, if they please. But if there is an ability to reject the mandate, then you can’t have the left’s goal of a national health care system. On and on it goes through every single issue we deal with – the left wants a national solution to all problems, we want a series of federal solutions and let the free marketplace of ideas determine what is applied based on local conditions and the desires of the local population.
So, the fight is to the finish – there will be no compromise. One side or the other will prevail. My view is that it is our side which will prevail – even if Obama gets re-elected in November , the pragmatic facts of life demonstrate conclusively that the social democracy model simply does not work. Maybe for two or three generations, at most – but then it falls apart because too many people are consuming too much wealth while ever less wealth is being created. The left is doomed – here and in Europe. The only thing it can do by clinging on to power is ensure that when the collapse comes it is ever worse. The sooner they are given the boot the less severe the crisis will be and the swifter will be the recovery.
The famous Reagan line – “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem” is more true today than ever before. The democratic party seems hell bent on forcing their view of government on us all at the federal level and they have their vocal supporters in the media applauding them on. Conservatives would prefer the more constitutional approach calling for 50 laboratories of state democracies – two completely separate views with little space in between from which to compromise.
Mark
So, the fight is to the finish – there will be no compromise
REALLY?
by censorship on SOME political discussion? that is no compromise?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-latinos-punish-your-enemies-voting-booth_511932.html
I used barkys own words. I should have known that some would not recognize them. You can read whatever you want into those words.
Again anyone who dares post anything Amazona does not like gets the insult treatment.
That’s ok I am used to it. Bring it on.So I am a troll now am I?
Well, I will say that is one of the nicer things you have called me.
Thanks I guess. 😛
Hey now, if you’d spent the day mowing and baling hay, you’d be a little cranky too.
Actually, mowing and baling hay is fun, and puts me in a good mood. This semi-urban ranching is not as much fun as the wild and wooly 4000-acre Wyoming spread, where so much of my time was spent burning things, breaking things, and blowing things up, but there is a certain calm and meditative quality about mowing sweet-smelling grass while admiring the nearby Rockies and watching the birdies and the foxes.
I am just tired of us trying to lay claim to the Higher Moral Ground and then posturing as bully-boys no better than those we scorn. We HAVE the ideas, we HAVE the ideology, we know it and we can defend it on any of its merits, so why do some of us get suckered into blustering and muttering silly threats about how “there will be guns involved”? It’s juvenile and silly.
We have the choices of either rising above the thugs and idea-less opposition or of trying to out-thug them. We have intelligent posters like Spook and the Count and Cluster but then we have silly nonsense like “there will be guns involved”.
Certainly if we are threatened, we are well within our rights to defend ourselves, and defend ourselves we will, very energetically. But acting like we look forward to violence is stupid.
And I say this in my most uncranky, second-glass-of-wine, demeanor.
But thank you, GMB, for reminding me what a delicate little flower you are, so easily bruised by even a hint of disagreement. I had forgotten how you bristle when opposed.
I will try to be more careful of your sensitivity from now on.
BTW, which of these links contains an Obama quote in which he said “I will warn you however that there will a fight and guns will be involved, so it would be best to leave your knife at home. ”
You keep saying these are Obama’s own words but they are not in any of the links you provided.
You wouldn’t be stretching the truth (what we call ‘lying’) now, would you?
Called paraphrasing there Amazona.. Does that need to be explained to you too? Oh well. Never mind. Anything to make yourself look superior in your own eyes.
Enjoy the rest of the day. 🙂
You really do take yourself too seriously. If you came up with idea that I was calling for violence or to “out thug” the real liberals.
Oh well accuse me of what you will.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
BHO in an address at Philadelphia June 14 2008.
Try using your favorite search engine. Type in “obama gun knife”
Lots of linkyness for ya,
Have fun 🙂
No, when you come right out and say you are using someone else’s words, this means you are using someone else’s words, NOT “paraphrasing”. I know perfectly well what it means to paraphrase, and you claimed outright that you were using Obama’s own words.
This is simply untrue.
“I used barkys own words . I should have known that some would not recognize them.>
“….I do believe the use of barkys own words show….”
“These are the words of Barak Hussein Obama”
It doesn’t take much to feel superior to someone who lies and then tries to weasel out when caught by trying to turn the tables on the one who points it out.
And your shrill overreaction is really funny.
I will warn you however that there will a fight and guns will be involved, so it would be best to leave your knife at home.
It is what it is. It says what it says.
Whatever Amazona. It is plain to see that no matter what, nothing will ever suit your needs unless it it is perfect. Any normal person could tell that is was a twist of bho own words. However since it did not follow the exact pattern, I am now a liar.
Get lost.
🙂
Come on guys; this is a silly argument, and I’ll bet our Lefties are sitting back laughing at both of you. I took GMB’s comment to be mostly tongue-in-cheek. I’ve also made reference to the fact that, unltimately, if ballots and ideas don’t prevail, the founders provided us with the second amendment for a reason, and presently, at least, our side has most of the guns and ammo. That’s not bragging; it’s just a fact, and a fact that I find quite comforting. As with most Conservatives I know, I would prefer that armed revolt be the absolute last resort, but it’s still an option.
so much for ANY compromise……..the new protected citizen on BFV
the NEWS and DEMOCRAT platform is NOT PUSH BACK, nor discussing it “BIGOTRY”.
How can you post about political compromise then leave one of the biggest topics off the table?
whats next boogeyman abortion??
Your history of pushing back when called to order by posting everything you can with the banned subject matter in it has been noted. You will not get far with this game playing and there has been a moderator discussion about it. Push it and you will be cut off. //Moderator
in their own words
That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.
“Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.
I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
GMB
.So I am a troll now am I?
seems we both are now…the circular firing squad has begun….
Is that my official welcome to Blogs for Trolls? If it is, why thank you Sir!
What is really funny is the blatant hypocrisy. MINE is the opinion being deemed unacceptable, MINE is the opinion being slammed, I am the one being castigated, because I had the temerity to offer an opinion that upset a couple of you guys. What ever happened to being able to offer up different opinions on things? Evidently that only holds with opinions YOU find acceptable.
All I did was point out what I thought was an unnecessarily belligerent statement, one which implied anticipation of violence and even something of a threat, and said I found it inappropriate.
Oooooh!!!! This got the defenses cranked up into high gear! How DARE I comment on anything GMB said??? How DARE I point out that IN MY OPINION such inflammatory rhetoric is counterproductive? Who the hell am I to think I an entitled to an opinion, much less entitled to express it?
Well, I will say it again. I think it is a mistake to threaten Lefties. Period. I have a history here of trying to fight a war of ideas, and of pointing out the hyper-emotional and over-hostile statements of the Left which depend on anger and resentment instead of on political philosophy. I have a history here of claiming that the RIGHT is based on ideas, on how best to run the country, and not on a need to dominate or shove our ideas down the throats of others.
So when I see people who are supposedly representing the Right using the same rhetoric as the Left, and proving me wrong when I state that conservatism is not about anger or vengeance or payback but is about government, I point that out.
And then you doubled down by falsely claiming that you were directly quoting Obama, when you so clearly were not.
And then you tried to weasel out of this by claiming that you were so clearly PARAPHRASING Obama, when your own statements made it clear you were not. I wasn’t arguing the merits of what you said, but merely pointing out WHAT YOU SAID.
All this has shown me is that the need to shout down, bully and intimidate any disagreeing opinion is not the exclusive territory of the Left. At least be man enough to admit that your impulse when contradicted is to try to slam down the other person because there is no room in your mind for anything that does not agree with you.
Fine. This is you, this is how you handle dissent, this is how you treat people with whom you share core values but who tread on your delicate little toes by not falling into lockstep with every single aspect of every single thing you say.
But I will keep on thinking that this blog is a place for expressing opinion, in spite of your evident belief that no one is ever supposed to be allowed to express any opinion counter to your own, and the proof that you feel justified in trying to bully any one who does.
And I’ll say it again. I don’t care what Obama says, I don’t care what his footsoldiers say, I don’t care how thuggish the Left acts, none of that IN MY OPINION justifies any of us lowering ourselves to that level.
My preference is to leave that entire arena of political discourse as the sole property of the Left, because I think, IN MY OPINION, it shows them to be devoid of actual ideas.
If you insist on proving that this is where you live, too, then go for it. Show us how you are most definitely NOT better than Leftist thugs who threaten with violence and retribution.
But you are also stuck with the reality of being one who tries to shout down and intimidate any dissenting observation instead of addressing it. So the field is yours.
If people who are not yet involved are going to have to take sides, there has to be a clear choice between the two sides. If both sides threaten, if both sides promote violence, if both sides gleefully look forward to retribution and payback, there isn’t much of a choice there. So I don’t see any advantage in shouting ‘LOOK!! We are just as violent and obnoxious and belligerent and nasty as THEY are!!”
As for me, I am with Spook on this. I will not try to prompt violence, I will not threaten, I will not look forward to violence. If it comes, it has to come from the Left. For some reason this seems way too hard for people like you to understand. IT HAS TO COME FROM THE LEFT. And if it does I too will be ready, I too will fight, I too will do whatever is necessary to stop it. I will stand there with the best of them and make it clear that I will not be bullied, that I WILL fight. I am not talking about being passive or weak. I am merely talking about not being like they are.
IT HAS TO COME FROM THE LEFT.
Evidently this is the kind of statement that prompts such violent overreaction:
Gleeful anticipation of violence and threats of same should be the venue of thugs like the SEIU, not of thinking Constitutional Conservatives
Ama
I agree with you on your point…
I just think GMB was being sarcastic to the troll watty.
I didnt read it as being threatening or out of line just his style of wit…but Hey that is from the KING of sarcasm and UN PC,….me LOL
I keep saying we need a sarcasm font…
I just don’t like it when the trolls throw our own words back in our faces and say “Look at this! YOU are the ones talking about looking forward to a fight where guns will be involved”. And we all know how feeble they sound when they come back with the claim that they were misunderstood and were just being sarcastic or ironic or whatever.
But GMB sure doesn’t tolerate disagreement well…….
Our Lefties are constantly reminding us that nothing gets done without compromise, and that Conservatism will be relegated to the ash heap of history for being uncompromising. And yet in nearly 100 comments, we have only one single comment from a Lefty on the subject of compromise and he didn’t even address the basic questions of the thread.
here is how the left “compromises”
N.Y. Democrats Poised to Nominate Former Black Panther, Anti-Israel Radical for Congress
The heart and soul of the Democratic party?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/n-y-democrats-may-nominate-anti-israel-radical-congress_646925.html
dont bring a feather pillow and a queens berry rules book to a street fight with the Hells Angles.
LOL
OT but funny as hell
$33 Million Bounty Response — Al Qaeda Offshoot Offers 10 Camels for Obama…20 Chickens for Clinton
more than either of them are worth IMHO…..LOL
here is how commies and leftists compromise……
‘You Need to Escalate’: Arrested Activists Get Standing Ovation at Leftist Conference in Call for Confrontations ‘Every Day’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/you-need-to-escalate-arrested-activists-get-standing-ovation-at-netroots-in-call-for-confrontations-everyday/
The post in question was, as .Spook said, entirely tongue in cheek. Someone misunderstood it and voiced their displeasure.
I voiced mine right back. Get used to it.
“But GMB sure doesn’t tolerate disagreement well…….”
Maybe but you have the same fault. You could have asked me what was meant by that post but you didn’t You fired off an insult first.
Nuff said?
GMB and NEO……….
I say what I mean and I mean what I say and I tend to think others do, too. Evidently some do not.
‘Nuff said.
That is your opinion which I don’t happen to share. You are offended by so much . Your viewpoint is the only one that is valid. Anyone who draws your ire is subjected to name calling, insults and personal attacks.
Your sense of humor is non existent I have not seen you post one thing that can that could be construed as an attempt at humor. I could go on and on but I just do not care anymore.
I am here until the banhammer strikes. Until B4V goes all chuckie johnson on us.
Get used to it Amazona.
Funny, I do not feel like a “bad boy” I do feel “tardy” though. 🙂 A great song. A great positive message too. For everyone.
LOL
my new avatar……NOT!!
COMPROMISE???
the radical marxist left continues to push us on EVERY front,
If we build a Maginot Line based on the economy being our only defense then we will bear the defeat that france did.
there are threats of race riot daily, racial payback murders are up 1000 fold, the homosexual agenda is ramping up the pressure on every front, including our churches, the scouts, schools and we are told WE are racists, bigots, homophobes for daring to speak up…….black panthers roam our streets threatening our citizens and howling mobs demand a lynching of an innocent man defending his life against a drugged out thug and we are told it is OUR fault.
Our very laws are challenged by horrible parents who unleashed their drugged up thug, with stolen property and burglar tools now reaping their 15 minutes of fame and $$$$$$$$ but it is US who dare to whisper the truth of what is going on in this country are the bad guys.
SHAME on US!!
————————————————————————————-
Parents of Trayvon Martin Call on Florida Legislators to Reconsider Florida’s Shoot First Law
NO mr and mrs tra von the LAW is to PROTECT US FROM the tra vons of this world…
DB in my opinion the label “Social Conservative” are those of us who are regarded as ardent anti-abortionists and ardent anti-homosexual agenda types.
I am both. These have become almost taboo issues to the moderators here. I can only speculate that they are uncomfortable talking about them or they don’t consider them winning issues.
We as moderators try to find the line between a discussion of an issue such as a pro-homosexual political agenda and outright insults about and attacks on gay people or homosexuality in general. We in general see a big difference between abortion and homosexuality and have no problem defending the right to life but a big problem with attacking people for their sexual orientation. It is not a matter of comfort or something being a winning issue. It is civility and respect and a desire to keep the blog from being a forum for insults and personal attacks. This is also a private blog and the owners get to make the rules so complaining about the rules will not be productive and being deleted for complaining will not be censorship but just not putting up with troublemakers. People not willing to follow blog rules are free to blog elsewhere. // Moderator
BTW
‘Peeing Calvin’ Decals Now Recognized As Vital Channel Of National Discourse
http://www.theonion.com/articles/peeing-calvin-decals-now-recognized-as-vital-chann,386/
ahhhhhhh nothing like compromise with the left…………capitulate or we burn your town down
CBC ****(Congressional Black Caucus):***** Zimmerman acquittal could spark race riots
Beltway Confidential ^ | June 11, 2012 | Joel Gehrke
Race riots could ensue if George Zimmerman — the shooter in the Trayvon Martin case — is found not guilty of second-degree murder by a Florida jury, the Congressional Black Caucus’ executive director allowed yesterday.
“I think a ‘not guilty’ verdict is extremely problematic in 2012,” said Angela Rye, the Executive Director and General Counsel for the Congressional Black Caucus. She said, “I don’t know,” when asked what would happen in the event of an acquittal. “I know that folks have talked about race riots –
talk about code words and threats??
yet we only want to talk about the economy…..
Social issues make good percentage of the repub party uncomfortable. They wish the social issues and social conservatives would just go away.
Our time, money, and votes are another story.
Since 2005 in Florida there have been 7000 murders and 258 cases of ‘Stand Your Ground’.
Even though I am not a Republican party member I have no problem with “social” issues like a safety net for the truly needy. This should be done at the county level or at worst the State level. Each and every case should be validated every two years at a minimum. Same with all “welfare” programs and those violating could and should be made examples of.
Same with education. There could be national guidelines but the entire system should be handled once again at the level nearest the population. Vouchers, and merit pay without the need for 40 levels of administration could be a good start with the old Reading, Writing and Arithmetic format based on the original liberal arts style of education and not the indoctrination with how to apply condoms on bananas we have now. All current schoolbooks would need to be evaluated to provide an honest representation as will the educators.
No more exorbitant pay and benefits for anyone holding public office and every bill written has one topic only. Any monies dedicated to a bill must be used on that bill and the general
slushtrust fund be done away with. There is so much wrong with this country at the moment-it would have to be an item by item fight and we could start with any public official who states anything like “it is only a xxx million dollar project that is not worth looking at right now when…” We can start by saving the money we pay them and their staff via termination.Constitutionally we need to rid ourselves of case law to once again return to Constitutional law, and have the election of our Senators returned to the State Congress. I could continue on ad infinitum but it will not matter until the next go round and the TEA party starts to turn the tide as it has done in the previous elections. Maybe, just maybe then we could see the light at the end of the tunnel because in this day and age–most folks that consider themselves educated do not even know the difference between State and Federal and their places and enumerated duties.