And thus we see the problem with politics today. It's become a zero-sum, them or us, all or nothing scenario where each side is refusing to compromise.
Quite so. A man wants to chop off my head. In the spirit of compromise I allow as to how it might be OK if he slit my throat as it allows me to keep my head attached to my body.
How is that for the spirit of compromise? Or would it just be better if I killed him? A zero sum game to be sure.
Dude all we have in politics today is a slave auction. The Democrats want me to slave for government for 150 days a year. The Republicans say that is mean and excessive and offer me a compromise of 140 days this year and only 150 next. They believe in smaller government.
You getting the joke yet?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
So those of you who speak in absolutes and refuse to compromise, think long and hard. What is more important to you, success of your nation, wellfare of your fellow citizen, or your own religious / political (politics has just become another religion) beliefs.
93143 wrote:That's why it's helpful to consider the family, not the individual, as the basic unit of society.
That is certainly useful sometimes, but with my statement I did refer to individuals as MSimon was discussing individual debt.
A lot of law and custom has by practical necessity to deal with individuals, but a man should not be required by law to pay back his parents for raising him, never mind giving him life in the first place. The care he renders unto them in their old age should likewise not be tallied by the bankers and set against his debt to them.
I did not mean to imply that children should pay their parents. And reading back now I probably somewhat misinterpreted what MSimon wrote.
MSimon wrote:Well OK. An individual can stay out of debt if they want to.
There are some exceptions. Beyond that, however, I think it's questionable whether that's always a good idea.
And thus we see the problem with politics today. It's become a zero-sum, them or us, all or nothing scenario where each side is refusing to compromise.
Quite so. A man wants to chop off my head. In the spirit of compromise I allow as to how it might be OK if he slit my throat as it allows me to keep my head attached to my body.
How is that for the spirit of compromise? Or would it just be better if I killed him? A zero sum game to be sure.
Dude all we have in politics today is a slave auction. The Democrats want me to slave for government for 150 days a year. The Republicans say that is mean and excessive and offer me a compromise of 140 days this year and only 150 next. They believe in smaller government.
You getting the joke yet?
Compromise is okay with things of no great import, but not with fundamental principles. Republicans have been compromising, and the Liberal ratchet effect has been going on for many decades now, and each year the demand for more compromise is just splitting the previous year's difference. The net effect is we keep moving left year after year after year.
I think we are way past the point where we should have stopped being civil. They mean to enslave us, and we mean not to let em.
And yeah, the bulk of the Establishment Republican party are weak willed collaborators as far as i'm concerned. Vichy B@stards.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
And thus we see the problem with politics today. It's become a zero-sum, them or us, all or nothing scenario where each side is refusing to compromise.
Quite so. A man wants to chop off my head. In the spirit of compromise I allow as to how it might be OK if he slit my throat as it allows me to keep my head attached to my body.
How is that for the spirit of compromise? Or would it just be better if I killed him? A zero sum game to be sure.
Dude all we have in politics today is a slave auction. The Democrats want me to slave for government for 150 days a year. The Republicans say that is mean and excessive and offer me a compromise of 140 days this year and only 150 next. They believe in smaller government.
You getting the joke yet?
Well how about a Gary Johnson/Ron Paul (or vice versa) Libertarian ticket? If not this year maybe 2016.
williatw wrote:Let me use an analogy. Suppose their was an employee called "Freddy & Fanny" who was hired by a supervisor called "Carter" in the late '70's. Carter leaves the company in 1980. Three supervisors later he (F&F) was promoted by another supervisor called "Clinton". Clinton leaves the company in 2000. His new supervisor bush is his sup for 6yrs, by now F&F is a serious incompetent POS. When bush is called on the carpet by his bosses, his answer is well its not my fault Carter & Clinton hired and promoted him, just because I was his sup and did next to nothing about him for 6yrs is beside the point. To Bush's shock and surprise his bosses hold him responsible for not dealing with F&F and end up sacking him.
As far as I an concerned, the answer MSimon is to keep sh&% canning them regardless of party until they get the message that either you are going to do your job and control the exploding entitlements, or you won't have a job and you can join your place with the rest of us serfs. The tea party has one good thing going for them, they seem to understand using the primary process to replace candidates, wish the dems would do the same. Course they have their own problems:
Diogenes wrote:
I take issue with this statement. I have quite a good understanding regarding the wants and desires of the Tea-Party folk, and the topic of SS or Medicaid has not been broached in any discussion I have ever been a party too. The topic just doesn't come up.
williatw wrote:Which says it all, "doesn't come up"?! The most massive increase in gov spending in the history of the republic is on entitlements, mostly SS, medicare & medicaid. They are/should therefore be the cornerstone of what I have been led to believe is the the tea party movements primary concern (quite justified) about the explosive growth in gov spending. And yet somehow the biggest example of which doesn't come up?. Cognitive dissonance I believe is the term. That's why I am rapidly becoming more Libertarian.
MSimon wrote:
Dude all we have in politics today is a slave auction. The Democrats want me to slave for government for 150 days a year. The Republicans say that is mean and excessive and offer me a compromise of 140 days this year and only 150 next.
In the Roman Empire, a slave working outside of his master household was entitled to keep 10% of his earnings.
At least he could hope to save up to buy himself out of slavery.
In the Roman Empire, a slave working outside of his master household was entitled to keep 10% of his earnings.
At least he could hope to save up to buy himself out of slavery.
We can't.
But we have a voice (vote) in choosing our slavers. They hadnt.
Also, you can always leave the country and move somewhere else, if you think it is better there. They could not do that either.
TDPerk wrote:"There is no attempt to understand what might be valid in the other side's expressed viewpoint or what might have been meant by it; only attempts to make it sound as stupid as possible."
In the case of the Democrats there is nothing valid in that side's opinion, and I'd hate to think they could more stupid. They are as inimical an influence now in on the national scene as they have been since they became an arm of the slaveholders.
And thus we see the problem with politics today. It's become a zero-sum, them or us, all or nothing scenario where each side is refusing to compromise.
Let me remind everyone, this nation was founded on compromise. Without the willingness to accept that we ourselves might be wrong, or that those with opposite views might be right, there can be no compromise. Without compromise there can be no USA.
So those of you who speak in absolutes and refuse to compromise, think long and hard. What is more important to you, success of your nation, wellfare of your fellow citizen, or your own religious / political (politics has just become another religion) beliefs.
Actually it all makes sense once you start seeing people's political beliefs as just another religion, with all the fever, irrationality and cognitive dissonance involved.
If, as you say, the founding principles were already a compromise, then further compromise would necessarily push those principles towards one extreme or another. That's what we are seeing. A very effective strategy of long term engineered ratcheted compromise away from those principles.
Your decision to think that others are acting religiously in their positions certainly doesn't seem consistent with any acceptance of the idea that "those with opposite views might be right". In fact, it seems to be a convenient excuse to easily dismiss their views in favor of your own. Or, possibly, to ease your own internal confusion as to why your obviously correct and logical political positions are not as convincing to those you share them with as you know they should be.
MSimon wrote:
Dude all we have in politics today is a slave auction. The Democrats want me to slave for government for 150 days a year. The Republicans say that is mean and excessive and offer me a compromise of 140 days this year and only 150 next.
In the Roman Empire, a slave working outside of his master household was entitled to keep 10% of his earnings.
At least he could hope to save up to buy himself out of slavery.
We can't.
The majority for the Roman slaves were debtors, so "buying himself out of slavery" was just paying off his debt earlier than the slavery alone would have.
The reason you think it's funny Skippy, is because you don't understand the issue. The way you phrase it reduces it so severely that there's nothing left to understand.
Romney hasn't ever supported a national mandate for health insurance. There is a world of difference what you do inside a state, and what you do with federal law. In Mass., almost everyone was already covered and the <2% who weren't were already getting free care from hospital emergency rooms. The mandate was in that instance a way to remove the burden from these few uninsured. Nationally, the situation is quite the opposite, as there are more than 40 million or >10% that are not covered.
Also note that we here in the US understand that all powers not expressly given the federal authorities necessarily remain with the states, who are perfectly within their rights to create mandates if they wish. That power is not in the constitution, so it is really a violation of the constitution to grant it to the federal government.
Doesn't matter. Constitutional law has been out of vogue for quite some time now.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Romney hasn't ever supported a national mandate for health insurance.
Actually he did just that, when he critizised Obamas original approach with a government run alternative to the private insurance companies. He then proposed this as an alternative.