 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
You can explain that to all the conservatives that lost their seats in the last election because they decided to act more like liberals.Originally Posted by zeus3925
No one is against compromise necessarily. Unfortunately comprimise in politics is one side strong arming a few on the other side, either to wishy washy or gutless to oppose them, and calling it bipartisanship.
"The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.
Like a crash on the highway, sarge...like a crash on the highwayI see you are drawn to high grade literature.
That's why I keep comin' back.
Am I a "Secular Progressive" RK? I guess. Proud to be secular, I gave up church and religion a long time ago.
Progressive? Nah, not really. I still search rural stores and gas stations for a Grape Nehi and a moonpie, and a nickel play on a pinball that I'll never find. I guess like many, I have a nostalgia for the things I remember, that are now gone.
Kinda like America, ya know.
I've lived in NM for almost forty years now. It's different from the VA of my youth, always has been, but even more now.
This country has changed, and I'll have to deal with it. For the next 3 months I'll serve on a Grand Jury panel, and I'll have to be face to face once a week with those changes, and try not to let my nostalgia for the way things used to be, affect my decisions on the way things are.
Again, tomorrow I'm off to the high country of NM. No phone, no cell, no internet, no TV. The three dogs just get to run the ranch and maybe we'll build a blind on the pond. Maybe we'll just lay in the hammock. Sigh.
JD
One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift
That would be true if they lost their seats to conservatives. The scene was right for a major upheaval in the body politic. We had two wars without end, a crashing economy and an unresponsive government.
Compromise, especially effective compromise, is not the product of strong armed tactics. That approach only leads to resentment. A good compromise is crafted by those who have differences, yet still wish to make a settlement in the end. A compromise often involves hard bargaining mixed in with some pragmatism. It does not play on weakness of character --that's surrender.
It is my hope that the next election would flush out the grandstanders that carry one like prima donnas, but, do nothing to advance our nation. Likewise, I would like to see the voters dispatch those who stand in the way those who will act for the common good.
Last edited by zeus3925; 10-01-2009 at 11:19 PM.
Sarge
I don't want to feed an ugly dog!
I'm gonna have to say that compromise got us in the soup we are in today.You can explain that to all the conservatives that lost their seats in the last election because they decided to act more like liberals.
No one is against compromise necessarily. Unfortunately comprimise in politics is one side strong arming a few on the other side, either to wishy washy or gutless to oppose them, and calling it bipartisanship
We as a people should never ever compromise on principle.
All of our social and fiscal ills originate from compromise.
Pete
Yours or mine? Ills or compromises?
JD
One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift
My point exactly, if they had acted like conservatives they probably would have not lost the numbers they did.
"Common good" is a subjective term to me. What you consider it to be may not be what I consider it to be.
"The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.
But we can keep the debate civil.
Sarge
I don't want to feed an ugly dog!
Sure. But rejection of your ideas/ideals is not being un-civil.
subroc
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Definitely from your social,fashist.marxist principlelsYours or mine? Ills or compromises
Pete
Pete that's just what we don't want here. That is an ad hominem attack. That isn't civil discussion.
Last edited by zeus3925; 10-02-2009 at 10:45 AM.
Sarge
I don't want to feed an ugly dog!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
