# Should Democrats and Republicans Compromise With Each Other?



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

Republicans have been capitulating to and appeasing progressive socialists since at least the days of FDR, and what has it got us?....Two giant Ponzi schemes (Medicare and Social Security) about to go broke, $15 trillion in right-now debt with over $50 trillion in unfunded promises to pay, military personnel in over 130 nations, gubmint schools that suck, a completely out-of-control police/nanny/snoop state, drug infested inner cities that are basically demilitarized zones, a bankrupt social welfare state, a prison-industrial complex that rivals communist China, on and on and on....And then we get brain dead twirp politicians who try and tell us the only reason that none of that crap is working is because it needs their "reforms" to fix it.

Clearly, compromising with statists has got us exactly nowhere....The less those asswipes, from both parties, do as "favors" to America or to reputedly solve our problems, the better.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 24, 2012)

Yes Democrats need to at least pretend to be American and find a way to compromise with Republicans


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 24, 2012)

No.  The nation is past the point of compromise.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

How about the Dems try it some time. Seems to me the only ones being asked to compromise is the Repubix 




CrusaderFrank said:


> Yes Democrats need to at least pretend to be American and find a way to compromise with Republicans



It would be nice for a 'CHANGE'.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 24, 2012)

Sigh.  The wacks on the far right of my GOP are . . . wacks.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

Were the socialist tyrants who rammed Obolshevikcare up our asses without one republican vote interested in compromise?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

Okay, you guys all blame it on the Democrats (and I assume Liberals). I would certainly blame SOME of it on LibDems but do you really believe the ConservaRepubliTarians have no fault at all in the total disfunction of our government?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Okay, you guys all blame it on the Democrats (and I assume Liberals). I would certainly blame SOME of it on LibDems but do you really believe the ConservaRepubliTarians have no fault at all in the total disfunction of our government?


I blame it equally on republicans for being gutless fool appeasers and poorly closeted progressive socialist neocon dinks (see: The Bushes, Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham, John McCain), who argue that the only reason that the trappings of socialistic welfare state don't work is because it isn't being run by brilliant and efficient tyrants like themselves.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, you guys all blame it on the Democrats (and I assume Liberals). I would certainly blame SOME of it on LibDems but do you really believe the ConservaRepubliTarians have no fault at all in the total disfunction of our government?
> ...



You left out the word "Statist".


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

Yeah....And?

Here's a question for you.....

What's worthy of compromise with a bunch of overgrown spoiled rotten little children, who will claim that anyone who won't go along with them just wants dirty air, polluted water, the poor living in cardboard boxes, the elderly and infirm tossed over a cliff, women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen and starving chiiillllllldrrreeeennnnnn?

Why even bother?


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Yeah....And?
> 
> Here's a question for you.....
> 
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

I guess that last question was a real stumper.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 24, 2012)

They should just shoot each other so we can clean out the old corrupt bloodlines.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> I guess that last question was a real stumper.



Nah, it was just the kind of extremist hysterics and nonsense that both sides display often. Indicative that if I reply with soemthing reasonable and intelligent, it is unlikely the same will be returned in kind. But okay, let's see. 

Why should the Republicans EVER compromise with the Democrats? How about special tax breaks for Big Oil? 
Regan said "Any company that needs help from the government to survive, shoudln't."

I guess he was wrong in your opinion? 

Because the Dems have proposed ending the special tax breaks for Big Oil and the GOP is fighting them tooth and nail on it. 
Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America? 

Now the Liberals I have debated here, would now come up with a counterpoint and very specific reasoning to support it OR they would criticize Obama and the Dems (as they often do). Let's see what you do. Or Infidel, whose cerebral firepower seems limited to cute little icons. Actually any Conserv who can actually provide a reasonably intelligent debate would be a refershing welcome.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

I knew you didn't have a cogent answer.

Hence, your diversionary tactic with all the leftist swill yapping points about eeeeevil Big Oil and offshoring.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> I knew you didn't have a cogent answer.
> 
> Hence, your diversionary tactic with all the leftist swill yapping points about eeeeevil Big Oil and offshoring.



LOL! Well it's not like we expected you to counter with anything intelligent like the Liberals would have offered! 

I get it. Really stupid people can't actually address points. But I KNOW there are intelligent Conservatives out there! I've met them irl. Trying to think if any are here. Obviously no evidence to that effect so far...

At least when I argue with Libs against Global warming, they're not little biotches who whine "Oooh. You brought up an issue! Oooh I won't address that!"
They provide facts, figures, links etc...

I still disagree with them but at least they're worth a little respect.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

Then you must be really stupid.

Remocrats and depublicans only "compromise" when it consolidates their power over the proles.....Anything over and above that and it's the gutless GOP that is expected to cave in.

Or, as Rand put it so well...

_A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal._


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Then you must be really stupid.
> 
> Remocrats and depublicans only "compromise" when it consolidates their power over the proles.....Anything over and above that and it's the gutless GOP that is expected to cave in.
> 
> ...



LOL! Well at least you tried...


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 24, 2012)

There is one thing you can count on from Oddball, projection, conjecture and one train of thought.

Do I think that Republicans and Democrats should compromise, your damn straight they should compromise.  Can they? Not with the current extremes that drive their parties.  Is it smart to at least try to compromise?  You know it.

I doubt there are very many successful business/corporations that don't consider all elements when devising a successful business model, that is how successful business stay that way, successful.  I work in strategic planning for a very successful corporation.  Every year our department produces several different approaches and ideas backed by data and demographics for the next year moving forward.  Those plans are mulled over by upper management.  Upper management comes back to us with their ideas based on the data we provide.  Almost all the time they have taken what we have given them and integrated into a couple different approaches.  In other words, different minds compromised into one or two plans.  We provide upper management projected results long-term and short-term moving forward and then the final decision is made by the upper management board.

For some odd reason our two major political parties are lead by individuals were are seriously immature and lack the vision to consider all the options on the table and the result is a dysfunctional government that has failed those who have elected them and failed the country.

If Washington used a business model to govern by and compromise was instituted our country would be much better off than it is today.

To use a couple of posters on these boards, who would you rather govern, Oddball or someone like High Gravity?  (I chose High Gravity because he has shown himself to be a versatile thinker)


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

Like I asked before: What compromise did those who rammed Obolshevikcare up America's ass seek?

And, as Rand so poignantly observed, "compromise" only exists amongst people with the same basic mindset...I am not an authoritarian thug and refuse to play along with them, as some sort of window dressing for arrogant preening navel gazers like you two.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2012)

They should blow each other.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

elvis said:


> They should blow each other.



Impossible.... they are all impotent.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 24, 2012)

Ayn Rand,,,who bitched and moaned about government programs,,,and then used them when she needed them.  Now there's a person who had convictions and then betrayed those convictions.  Good job, Oddball


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> There is one thing you can count on from Oddball, projection, conjecture and one train of thought.
> 
> Do I think that Republicans and Democrats should compromise, your damn straight they should compromise.  Can they? Not with the current extremes that drive their parties.  Is it smart to at least try to compromise?  You know it.
> 
> ...



Solid post. Both sides have refused to compromise on several issues that they should have, for years now. Our government has become completely dysfunctional. We have no real leadership from either side. No one dares presenting real solutions because that would involve the risk of failure. So instead, we have people who get re-elected by pandering to the ignorance and hatred of the oddballs of the world. 
We need a change. Or we can all move to Belize and enjoy the surf! Well, maybe not all of us...


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> Ayn Rand,,,who bitched and moaned about government programs,,,and then used them when she needed them.  Now there's a person who had convictions and then betrayed those convictions.  Good job, Oddball


Not even a good try at deflection.

Rand's observation viz. compromise is dead on and there's nothing you can say to refute it.

BTW, she paid into those programs, by force, therefore was entitled to recoup that which was expropriated from her.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > They should blow each other.
> ...



Damn right they are impotent, that's why they can't get "it" done.  It takes two, to get "it" done.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Ayn Rand,,,who bitched and moaned about government programs,,,and then used them when she needed them.  Now there's a person who had convictions and then betrayed those convictions.  Good job, Oddball
> ...



Oh brother.  Look around you.  If the business world ran the way you wanted government run, they would all be failures. One train of thought thinking leads to failure.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 24, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Seriously dude. I usually give Oddball one chance to at least attempt an intelligent post before blowing him off for the reaminder of threads. Seriously, it's like arguing with some homeless whackjob on the street. Why bother?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


Another really shitty attempt at a comparison that doesn't compare.

No business can force anyone to use their product.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Problem is.... the Dems keep trying to stick it in the wrong hole


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


It ain't just the dems.

Just about any time that the remocrats and depublicans "get it done", the only people that get "done" are the proles.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



I feel like that poor banana at times 

Banana rape is a terrible crime and should never be allowed.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Republicans have been capitulating to and appeasing progressive socialists since at least the days of FDR, and what has it got us?....Two giant Ponzi schemes (Medicare and Social Security) about to go broke, $15 trillion in right-now debt with over $50 trillion in unfunded promises to pay, military personnel in over 130 nations, gubmint schools that suck, a completely out-of-control police/nanny/snoop state, drug infested inner cities that are basically demilitarized zones, a bankrupt social welfare state, a prison-industrial complex that rivals communist China, on and on and on....And then we get brain dead twirp politicians who try and tell us the only reason that none of that crap is working is because it needs their "reforms" to fix it.
> 
> Clearly, compromising with statists has got us exactly nowhere....The less those asswipes, from both parties, do as "favors" to America or to reputedly solve our problems, the better.



It got you the rise to the most powerful nation on Earth.

Youd rather take it back to a 19th century backwater nation?

PROGRESSIVE ERA! STOP DODGING!


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

Bullshit.

The innovation and mechanization of the Industrial Revolution brought that about, not any social engineering and tinkering by progressive socialist wankers.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Wrong hole?   Oh, you mean da


----------



## Vidi (Apr 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> The innovation and mechanization of the Industrial Revolution brought that about, not any social engineering and tinkering by progressive socialist wankers.



absolutely incorrect.

Without the "social engineering" as you put it. Workers would have been little more than fuedal servants working in the factories for a pittance without the income to expand beyond city tenament living. It gave them the money to purchase homes and fill them with products, thus making the industrialists richer. ( A good thing ) 

Its only when the workers moved into the middle class that true American consumerism was born. Its on the backs of that consumerism that America rose to economic power.

You can disagree all you want, but it doesnt matter how many toasters a factory produces, if theres no one to purchase the toasters, the factory closes.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 24, 2012)

No, it's absolutely correct.

Unlike you, I don't worship at the altar of economic meddlers, social engineers and other do-gooders.

I -correctly- hold that the greatness of America has come from its ordinary, highly inventive and infinitely flexible people and not from on high via its petty politicians and parasitic bureaucrats.

But feel free to venerate your graven images....Freedom of religion and all that.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> No, it's absolutely correct.
> 
> Unlike you, I don't worship at the altar of economic meddlers, social engineers and other do-gooders.
> 
> ...


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?



They better compromise if they are to retain their duopoly power.  Its gotten so bad recently though, that we _might_ see a third party in the next few decades


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?
> ...


I'd settle for a second party.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> No, it's absolutely correct.
> 
> Unlike you, I don't worship at the altar of economic meddlers, social engineers and other do-gooders.
> 
> ...



I hold that Americas greatness comes from the willingness of the people to work hard for their own future. Not from the multinational corporation who moves American wealth out of our great nation. 

Where you see petty politicians and parasitic bureaucrats ( and they are there as well, I do not deny it ) I see the will of the people demanding their FAIR and EARNED share of the American Dream.

No, we all wont be rich and thats fine. But everyone whos willing to work their ass off for it, ought to have a job, put food on the table and a decent home to call their own. Not handed to them, not given to them for free, but earned and not stolen from them through the colusion of a multinational foreign owned corporation and a slimy politician spread lies about the poor and working class so they can get re elected.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2012)

Wow...Didn't take too long to get you to invoke the classic  progressive socialist  strawman: The eeeevil and reviled corporation.

I guess all the nefarious aspects of human nature cease to apply, the moment you become a progressive socialist politician or bureaucrat, huh?

I imagine that there's _*absolutely nothing*_ that progressive socialist demagogues say and do that would make anyone desirous of moving their business operations elsewhere. 

Nope....The hands of the authoritarian and the do-gooder are absolutely clean, aren't they?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Wow...Didn't take too long to get you to invoke the classic  progressive socialist  strawman: The eeeevil and reviled corporation.
> 
> I guess all the nefarious aspects of human nature cease to apply, the moment you become a progressive socialist politician or bureaucrat, huh?
> 
> ...



Actually human nature is exactly why we need the government to regulate corporations. It is human nature to get away with whatever it can as  long as its in tehir own best interests, nevermind the best interests of the country. 

But as long as we are on the subject, human nature is also the reason Communism can never and will never work in a real life situation. It doesnt take into account human greed and their lust for power, so Communism will always turn into an Authroitarian nightmare that opresses the people.

The best solution is to keep the country squarely in the middle. Unfortunately, as the Republicans move further and further right, the middle moves further and further right as well, thus upsetting the balance. 

But I know how that seems nowadays. Advocating for a 1950's style middle of the road appraoch is seen by the extreme right as socialism. Well, then if Eisenhower was a socialist, count me in too. cause I like Ike!


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm convinced.....You're a fool.

You honestly believe that those with massive political power will be any less corrupt than those who have amassed their power in the business world. 

I weep for my nation.


----------



## Interpol (Apr 25, 2012)

I don't think everything needs to be political. 

For instance, the idea of reducing corporate welfare by, let's say, half a trillion over a decade, is something that three quarters of the public agrees on. Even if Republicans and Democrats pass something that reduces corporate welfare, they're getting the people's business done. It's just beyond partisanship, some of the stuff that is out there right now. 

Republicans have cut tax loopholes and giveaways before, I don't see how it hurts them, but our friends on the right who are elected in Washington continue to protect their corporate benefactors. 

I don't think it's blasphemous to ask a little favor from a friend who you happened to make very wealthy because of the advantages you've given them along the way. Asking them to now kick in a little bit by not accepting taxpayer money makes perfect common sense. 

I know far more Republicans in my life who are for that than against even, but I fear that our leaders, once they get elected, they get deaf really quick to very basic things that would have been agreed to a long time ago when Democrats and Republicans always passed the easy stuff. 

I mean, holy crap, they're having trouble with a highway bill because we've got a very raucous wing with our Tea Party friends, who now believe that all infrastructure amounts to pork. We should care about spending and look for ways to both reduce it and increase revenue, but we can't start doing it at the expense of infrastructure, which makes capitalism work better the better it's maintained!

It's a split Congress, so you can't get everything you want. Although I love the spirit of the Tea Party, I fear that they are too extreme within the framework of a gov't that requires compromise when both parties share power. It's as though the Paul Ryan budget was meant to fail, since they passed everything they wanted knowing full well they would meet with opposition from the other party who controls the Senate. Instead of real debt reforms being made last year, we got political stunts. 

I think compromise would be best, but that would take more moderate folks like myself to be populating the Republican party, and right now I get bullied by them if I don't fall in line with every single extreme view they have. I just feel like more people like myself and other Republicans and Democrats I know in real life would've compromised in our business to make things work better. We would have found a way. 

I think if you have a Congress filled with fairly moderate folks who aren't beholden to corporations, but do encourage capitalism, I think that if they had sent President Obama something that keeps in tact some of the things he wanted to, he would have signed onto about a $4 trillion package over 10 years, which to me is a nice start. 

I think maybe if we passed more things by piecemeal, rather than in a lump sum fashion, maybe it would be easier to find compromise. 

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama agree with the student loan reform stuff, and something on Pell Grants should get passed, hopefully. It's another thing that to me is not political. Pell Grants don't represent what's wrong with the investments we do make. But corporate welfare does. 

I can't say I'm optimistic about compromise happening in Congress any time soon, we have total gridlock right now and things like the job package are sort of getting passed by piecemeal, but hardly anything outside of the focus of returning vets into the workforce. We have a House that seems to be stuck. If they pass things that help the economy, they fear it will help the President. A lot of this stuff is stuff that Republicans have passed before. 

From the Senate we read headlines almost every week about another one of those issues where three quarters of us agree, but then we read, "Bill Fails 52-47" and it makes people scratch their head at how things don't get passed even though the majority is in favor of it. We have filibuster-happy folks over there willing to hold up anything and everything. 

I think instead of holding things up, you have to put your stamp on the things that go forward. Influence big decisions, influence history! Don't just sit on your hands and hold it up! What we have currently is a government afraid to agree with the President, a fellow that 72% of the general public would like to see do successful things, even if some of them aren't strong supporters of him. 

So yeah, I'm tired of the extremism I've been seeing, and I'd like to see more moderates in there again who can actually move things along. We can get ourselves out of this trouble, we just need serious folks who want to work together to do it, not just folks who are out to make a point.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 25, 2012)

Interpol said:


> I don't think everything needs to be political.
> 
> For instance, the idea of reducing corporate welfare by, let's say, half a trillion over a decade, is something that three quarters of the public agrees on. Even if Republicans and Democrats pass something that reduces corporate welfare, they're getting the people's business done. It's just beyond partisanship, some of the stuff that is out there right now.
> 
> ...



Dude, you make a lot of common sense points but you lean a bit to the Left. Also, you didn't declare Obama the anti-Christ. Which means the extremists here are going to shat a brick and label you everything under the sun.
Nice, reasonable post though.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2012)

The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> I'm convinced.....You're a fool.
> 
> You honestly believe that those with massive political power will be any less corrupt than those who have amassed their power in the business world.
> 
> I weep for my nation.



Pop Quiz:

What is the key difference between politicians and corporate leaders in America that makes it more sensible to trust the former with the responsibility of running things?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> I'm convinced.....You're a fool.
> 
> You honestly believe that those with massive political power will be any less corrupt than those who have amassed their power in the business world.
> 
> I weep for my nation.




If that's what you read in my post, the fool is YOU.

Take a reading comprehension class. You obviously need it.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I'm convinced.....You're a fool.
> ...


Pop quiz:

Which business can force you, at gunpoint if necessary, to use their product or service?


----------



## whitehall (Apr 25, 2012)

Democrats and republicans should do what they think is best for the United States instead of what they think will benefit the party and their chance for re-election. If they have differences of opinion along the way that's fine as long as the citizens pay attention and elect the people who best represent their values and the US Constitution.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 25, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.



While we usually disagree, this is an exception. We really do need a third party. Now, the only way I can think of for that to be possible is massive campaign finance reform. Of course the whackjobs will post "LOL" or little icons without ever having a counterpoint or reasoning but if you or anyone else would care to offer something a tad more sutbatantive, please do. 
I believe Ron Paul is against it, which is ironic because I think he'd have a VERY viable chance if we had it. I'm sure the Dems & Repubs are against it but it seems the only way to fix what's wrong with our government. Comments?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 25, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Democrats and republicans should do what they think is best for the United States instead of what they think will benefit the party and their chance for re-election. If they have differences of opinion along the way that's fine as long as the citizens pay attention and elect the people who best represent their values and the US Constitution.



Good to see an intelligent opinion expressed - and without slinging petty insults at anyone... imagine that! Good post. Too bad they don't do that anymore.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?



I'm not sure how you can compromise with people who refuse to be reasonable and that's something we see in politicians of both parties.  We have a lot of problems currently going on in this country and future problems we already know are coming (financial stability of Social Security, Medicare, the national debt, etc.) that most of the politicians on both sides of the aisle are refusing to accept the reality of.  How do you compromise with people who refuse to acknowledge the problem and then demagogue the proposed solutions?


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 25, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.



I used to agree with that idea but practice has shown what happens is the third party gains too much power over legislation and in the end the citizens lose as now the odd man out controls the results. David Deutsch writes about this and the video below is worth a listen. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pZ9LTZW1g]David Deutsch on the AV Referendum (UK) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> While we usually disagree, this is an exception. We really do need a third party. Now, the only way I can think of for that to be possible is massive campaign finance reform. Of course the whackjobs will post "LOL" or little icons without ever having a counterpoint or reasoning but if you or anyone else would care to offer something a tad more sutbatantive, please do.
> I believe Ron Paul is against it, which is ironic because I think he'd have a VERY viable chance if we had it. I'm sure the Dems & Repubs are against it but it seems the only way to fix what's wrong with our government. Comments?



I don't really see how campaign finance reform will help third parties.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 25, 2012)

This is the presidential and congressional election game every election cycle. Suppose there are 10 voters each election. 3 voters always vote republican (because they believe the party is always right), 3 other voters always vote democrat (because they believe the party is always right), and the other 4 voters are independent and always vote for the lesser of the "two evils" (because they believe that both parties are wrong but they prefer the least worse candidate for a given election cycle.)

The 4 voters who vote for the "lesser of two evils" prop up the system. If they were to take their 4 votes and give them to a reform candidate then they wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. 

The vote total would be.
4 votes 40% towards reform candidate
3 votes 30% towards democrat
3 votes 30% towards republican

But if one independent voter decides to vote for a "lesser of the two evil candidates" then the reform vote fails, because either the democrat or republican gets majority vote at that point. The 3 remaining voters realize that their votes will be waisted if just one independent votes for either of the two parties, thus all independents vote for the "less of two evils" even though all the independents would prefer a reform party. 

Both Republican and Democrat Parties realize that they will never lose duopoly power because independent voters would have to unify perfectly (if one independent votes for either of the two parties the reform is broken). Thus Republican's and Democrat's are never held accountable because they will never be replaced by a third party. Additionally, since both parties are unaccountable, they can honestly accuse each other of wrong doing. Thus perpetuating the "lesser of two evil" voting system.
__________________


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 25, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> The 4 voters who vote for the "lesser of two evils" prop up the system. If they were to take their 4 votes and give them to a reform candidate then they wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.



But haven't you heard?  Voting third party is a "wasted" vote.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 25, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > While we usually disagree, this is an exception. We really do need a third party. Now, the only way I can think of for that to be possible is massive campaign finance reform. Of course the whackjobs will post "LOL" or little icons without ever having a counterpoint or reasoning but if you or anyone else would care to offer something a tad more sutbatantive, please do.
> ...



For the last 20 years, whichever candidate had the most money in their warchest, won election for a federal office 90% of the time.
Think about that.
Citizens United has given companies, unions and PACs the ability to pour unlimited funds into campaigns. 
Think about that for a minute. Special Interests can now buy the candidate of their choice with a 90% certainty that their investment will pay off.
Now think about how things would be different if that was taken away. If Ron Paul started with exactly the same amount of money as Romney and Obama. If people who actually wanted what is best for our country, had a viable chance due to a level playing field. If lobbyists lost their ability to buy politicians. 
The power of the individual vote would return in a big way. It would be like America.


----------



## konradv (Apr 25, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.



Inject?  What does that mean?  The only way I see a third party getting any traction is if we go to public financing of elections and break the lock incumbents and the two major parties have on campaign contributions.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



I don't think that would do anything to help third party candidates get elected, though, for the reasons stated in posts 58 and 59.  Furthermore, all candidates starting off on a level playing field cash wise only makes it more easy for the incumbent to get reelected.  They are already a known quantity in their area and challengers need to be able to raise money in order to compete with that advantage by getting their name out there too.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that last question was a real stumper.
> ...



I find no LOGIC in this sentence below!
Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America? 

Well first, these companies have other things going on that needs money generation and tax free BTW. Your FEELINGS have no monetary value and they cant issue dividend of tears btw. So sob away my friend! I see truly see your point and you are so spot on!
My small little problem is the 100% & 100% part. Not all worker's here are legal and the illegal one's are paying state and federal taxes btw.
Please see my small unworthy suggestion point to the above less then 100% sentence.
Law's are just like junkmail, to be trashed asap. Oop's what am I saying, I follow them 100% the american way! Gee....


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 25, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Um okay. We won't have any laws then. That was a um "special" post! Very nice. Really.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 25, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Many undocumented workers are working under stolen documents ie someone elses social security number. Then when the IRS decides that person hasnt paid their federal income taxes guess who they go after? Not the Illegal but the Legal citizen who had their identity stolen. And yes there are outs for the accused but guess what? It takes as long as 18 months to get everything worked out and in the mean time the IRS is garnishing wages and freezing bank accounts. And even once everything is worked out, the IRS is a LOT slower to send you your money back as they were to grab it in the first place. 

I had to lay off nearly half my work force from my old bakery in order to meet payroll because the IRS was taking so much because some illegal had gotten ahold of my SSN. 

The idea that illegals still pay taxes is bullshit.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 25, 2012)

Compromise as in, loosening immigration law, allowing unconstitutional programs and laws, spending more money we don't have?  That kind of prinicpled challenges to evil?  Stick that compromise where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## rdean (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?



Compromise is good, crazy isn't.  War on Science is crazy.  War on Gays is crazy.  War on Hispanics is crazy.  Can you compromise on "crazy"?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 25, 2012)

konradv said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.
> ...



Public funding would be a horrible way to do it.  You'd end up having to make an ugly choice:  

1. Let any crazy who wants to run have that funding and force taxpayers to pay for a lot of whack jobs to pretend they have half a clue or any chance at swaying anyone to vote for their psychotic BS

2. Implement some sort of bureaucratic body to decide who is and who isn't a serious candidate.  If you can't imagine what the potential problems would be with either political party getting hold of -that- control panel, then I'm not sure what sort of reasoning led you to believe campaign finance reform is a necessity in the first place.

So that's the choice it boils down to if you publicly fund elections.  Either blast exorbitant amounts of the government's budget on a whole lot of stupid, or accept the eventuality that we'll go from a 2 party to a 1 party system.  No thanks.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 25, 2012)

On the broader topic, I suppose I can somewhat appreciate where the OP is coming from, but I can't help but think as I read the post that it sounds like your idea of compromise in government is for the republicans to make concessions to whatever parts of the democrat agenda is popular, but not necessarily vice versa.  Maybe you just didn't have room in your post for more examples, but that's the impression I get.

Mind you, I'm not trying to make the implied point that the republicans are correct and not the democrats, I just can't help but notice that every time someone says the government needs to start compromising what they mean is that the party they oppose needs to roll over for the party they support.  This smells strongly of more of the same.

As far as compromise in general, I'd have to say it's a double edged sword.  When a serious problem arises and the answer is obvious enough for there to be universal support, then yes, compromise and coming together is great.  The reason there isn't universal support for the example you listed is partially, I'm sure, because of the influence of lobbyists, but it's also partially due to a genuine difference in philosophy.  Where I see this primarily is in what one considers to be a "tax loophole" and what actually qualifies as corporate welfare.  Widespread public support of a policy doesn't make it sound policy, just as popular opinion doesn't define truth.

For my money, however, I'm not so sure I want the government "getting more done".  After all the lobbying influence from people trying to cheat the game into their favor, then all the bullshit fringe focus groups that have to be appeased by virtue of comprising large enough chunks of voting blocks, then the pork bi-product and earmark garbage, and factoring in occasions of plain old fashioned incompetence, the government's actions fuck things up at least as often as they actually pay off these days.  You know what big economic deals had massive bipartisan support in recent years?  NAFTA and GATT.  Bye bye textiles!  Bye bye high tech industry!  How's that compromise workin out for you?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Any industry that deals with the basic human necessities would such as healthcare.  One's chances of living a healthy and full life without healthcare are pretty damn slim. 
The healthcare industry knows that they have Americans by the balls.  Other civilized countries negotiate healthcare cost with the healthcare industry providers and the result is healthcare at half the price.  Where as the healthcare industry has so much influence that the art of negotiation has hit a brink wall that shields an excellent economic deterrent of negotiation that would help reduce deficits and enhance overall economic growth is not going to happen.
There's a gun to America's head alright.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 25, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.



THANK YOU! for understanding how a third party would need to function in order to have any power at all.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 25, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Having the means to help someone, but then deciding not to help them, is not the same as forcing them at gunpoint to use your product.  If you have moral issues with the healthcare industry, you can opt out of using their services without any other person forcing consequences on you.  It's your choice and nobody will ever try to take it from you. . . feel free to try and fix yourself or let your ailment run its course.

It's the same reverse logic that they use with the tax breaks vs entitlement spending argument.  If I have money and you need money, but I don't give you money, that's not the same as me taking away your money.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 25, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.
> ...



It will start small and grow Vidi.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 25, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If the US government would negotiate the cost of healthcare it would lower the cost of healthcare for everybody, individuals and business.  It would not be any cost to you as a matter of fact your wallet would get thicker. So lets see,,two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending.  Lowering healthcare costs gives the consumer more money to spend.  Business would benefit because they just received a very significant cost of doing business reduction (the cost of their employees benefits), thusly putting more money in their coffers.  This helps US business compete internationally and create more jobs at home.
And your problem with this is,,,,?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 25, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



No, not at all. You simply require anyone who wants to run, to obtain "X" number of signatures and that weeds out the whackjobs. We already have states that use clean elections. We just need to look at it again, with an open mind and see if we can improve what's in place.
Or we can enjoy the perfect system we have...


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 25, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Maybe I don't feel like I share the responsibility to help businesses pay for their employees' benefits.

And you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your economic assessment at face value.  As I said before, I won't argue the economics of healthcare with you, but I will say that there's enough different contradicting opinions by people with actual credentials to put my chances of believing a random guy on USMB has it all worked out and can explain this complex problem's solution in a paragraph or two well outside of betting range.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?



You mean like, work together for the good of the country?

Never happen. I hope that President Obama stops compromising with the damn R's. all they care about is hurting him and they have hurt the whole country. 

And now, this new book - 

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

If the R's hate the US so much, let them leave. They won't be missed.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 25, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



OK,,,,try these links, they all paint a pretty consistent picture.

U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France - The Washington Post


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The "or" part is my main problem with this post.  This is not an either or situation.  If we don't go to purely public funded elections, we don't absolutely have to keep everything the same as it is now.  I agree that the campaign funding system's dicked up as it stands, I'm just not sure that full-on government override is what's necessary, or that it wouldn't hinder the electoral process more than it helped.

The problem I have with the signature idea is this new tactic that the major parties are employing for public initiative measures, where you flood the petitioners with frauds signing fake names and get the samplers to declare that too high a percentage of the signatures are [probably] fake to validate said measure.  The best part about this method is that it's all under-the-table.  That means you don't have to use "official" campaign funds to pay asswipes to do it.  That's the nice thing about basing the legitimacy of the campaign on campaign donations:  Monopoly money lends no credence to someone buying ad time.

If you ask me, it would -seem- (I haven't examined this issue nearly thoroughly enough to think that I've got it figured out from all angles, mind you.  Pointing out problems with proposed solutions is, sadly, easier than coming up with the correct solution) that a cleaner fix would be getting rid of the corporate personhood bullshit, for one.  Easy rule to implement:  If you can't vote in said election, you can't donate in said election.  General Electric doesn't get a ballot. . . no GE donations.  UAW also gets no ballot and thus no donations.

Next, implement a couple rules in light of Citizens United.  Pick a time frame, maybe 8 months out from any election, any ad taken out by -anyone- that specifically takes a stand on any candidate (or any of said candidate's policies or their party) on the coming ballot is automatically considered a campaign donation worth the cost of the ad itself, and is subject to all implied limitations.

Last, I suppose I'll concede to the point that I could see partial public funding being a good option.  Get this:  drastically lower the limit that any individual can donate to a candidate.  Since this will drastically lower the amount most candidates have access to, use the public funding end to say, match their donation funds 1:1 to pay for campaigning expenses, but those matching funds -only- kick in when the expenses are verified.  This way, nut jobs still wouldn't be able to hit up the public coffers to prop up their soap boxes, yet you could still drastically cut down on the massive advantage that wealthy special interests have in getting their candidates elected.

Once again, this off-the-top-of-my-head solution leaves much to be desired and has more than a few holes in it, I'm sure.  My main point is simply that there are alternatives other than the current shoddy system and complete government control over the campaign purse strings.


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?



From my perspective, if a Democrat contends that all gun owners should be summarily shot with a fifty caliber weapon and the Republicans contend that the Second Amendment prohibits shooting gun owners at all, the compromise is not to shoot them with a .22.

In fact, there is no proper compromise.

The proper GOP response to those particular Democratics SHOULD be, "go fuck yourselves."  

That said, there might very well be many things for which it's worthwhile to seek a valid middle ground.

But there are some things where ANY "compromise" is a foolish move.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 25, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



We can go make a main topic post and I'm sure I can get plenty of Republican types and plenty of Libertarian types to drop all sorts of links to experts on their side of the issue with their own analysis of the causality of the health care situation as it stands, as well as their own take on what the "obvious" solutions are.  Then you could probably drop some links to articles where experts who support your ideals make some pretty persuasive arguments on why the experts who disagree are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for whatever reason.  Then we could make another topic where the Republicans and then the Libertarians link their own experts making their own persuasive arguments on why your experts are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for this reason or that. . . 

See the pattern emerging, here?  Does it smell like the global warming argument, yet?  Or the supply-side-demand-side argument, yet?

Sadly, it probably doesn't.  One thing most people seem to have in common is that they're utterly convinced that their experts are the right experts, and as much as I'd be willing to bet that you're far from certain of that, I'd also be willing to bet that you'll claim to be -quite- sure.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 25, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



What an excellent post. It's great to see someone disagree with me so effectively, intelligently and with such well-reasoned supporting positions!
Normally, you just get whackjobs who sling petty insults and then parrrot something they saw on MSNBC or FOX.
I've never thought of what you say about partial public funding and limiting commercials to the degree of donations. Excellent ideas!


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 26, 2012)

Compromising with insanity, is still insanity.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 26, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?



Compromise was possible and common until Grover Norquist and Carl Rove rode into town.  Once both parties were focused on governance, today only the Democrats are so focused.  

The Republican Party has moved so far right their adherents only concern is ideological purity and personal gain.  They have no interest in compromise, their focus is on power and how to keep it.  The great irony being this the more they focus on the prize, the fewer citizens register as Republican.  

Numbers may have been important before this election, now the only number that matters is the one with the greatest number of zeros after the $$$ signs.  The great test will be how many former members of the GOP will be fooled once again by the hate, fear and false promises of the Republican Party bosses.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 26, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



Find me one unbiased economist that doesn't think that the cost of healthcare in this country isn't a threat to the US economy in the long run,,just one.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 26, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Are you two on the correct message board?  A smart discussion on one of the most critical issue of our time and IMO the greatest threat to our democratic ideals is money and influence (promises made to elected officials by special interests, jobs for wifey, or child, future jobs, booze and broads, etc.) in the political process.  During and after elections.  

Grove Norquist has been successful in obtaining a pledge from many members of Congress (and state law makers) not to raise taxes; wouldn't it be nice if someone could entice them to sign a pledge to accept nothing from anyone who has any interest in legislation and agree to change the rules of each chamber to require moral purity?  

I'd also like to see a rule which prohibited and former member of Congress from lobbying their former colleagues; any former member doing so would be stripped of his retirement and any benefits s/he is receiving at the time or in the future.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 26, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



Wow. Another intelligent post. Yes, one of the things that REALLY has me pissed off at Obama was breaking his promise to shut the revolving door of lobbyists. And now we have that situation exacerbated exponentially by Citizen's United. Might as well put out a sign that says
"Country for Sale! Get it here, get it while it's hot!"


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 26, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Please refer to my last post that you quoted.  The economists that disagree with the assessment you've expressed are biased?  Shocker.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 26, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



I just want to say I read this again and again and I can find nothing to argue with in this post. You make clear concise points and have really won me over. 

Amazingly good post.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 26, 2012)

Economists are wrong almost as often as meterologists.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 26, 2012)

Seriously, though, I don't think anybody would argue that the current health care system is f'ed up.  Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, aside from liberals and democrats, all have ideas that they believe would be the best fix.  My point was never that I don't agree that there's major problems with it, simply that having the government "negotiate" health care costs isn't the singular, definitive answer to those problems.  It's not an either-or question, current system or government price control.  There's a lot of "solutions" floating around out there that, again, are backed by folks with actual education and credentials that I don't have (Economics degrees, that sort of thing).  What I'm getting at is that it seems silly for people who don't have education or credentials in the relevant fields to claim to know which actual accredited experts are biased and which are pure and correct.  It's also very suspicious that, in my experience, 99 times out of 100 the experts that people claim to know to be the correct experts are the experts that support the rhetoric of the party those same people support.  Is it coincidence that the scientists and economists most people believe just -happen- to be the ones that share their world views?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 26, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Seriously, though, I don't think anybody would argue that the current health care system is f'ed up.  Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, aside from liberals and democrats, all have ideas that they believe would be the best fix.  My point was never that I don't agree that there's major problems with it, simply that having the government "negotiate" health care costs isn't the singular, definitive answer to those problems.  It's not an either-or question, current system or government price control.  There's a lot of "solutions" floating around out there that, again, are backed by folks with actual education and credentials that I don't have (Economics degrees, that sort of thing).  What I'm getting at is that it seems silly for people who don't have education or credentials in the relevant fields to claim to know which actual accredited experts are biased and which are pure and correct.  It's also very suspicious that, in my experience, 99 times out of 100 the experts that people claim to know to be the correct experts are the experts that support the rhetoric of the party those same people support.  Is it coincidence that the scientists and economists most people believe just -happen- to be the ones that share their world views?




I see what youre saying and I agree a great many people seek out data to support their already established opinions.

However, couldnt one argue that with an open mind your world view would be shaped by those very same experts?

Then theres also the "guilty by association" mindset. If one group is the proponent of a world view that the individual feels isnt supported by facts, they are then less likely to believe that group has a grasp on facts about other issues as well and that the group they agree with on one issue might just be the group who has the answer on another issue.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 27, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, though, I don't think anybody would argue that the current health care system is f'ed up.  Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, aside from liberals and democrats, all have ideas that they believe would be the best fix.  My point was never that I don't agree that there's major problems with it, simply that having the government "negotiate" health care costs isn't the singular, definitive answer to those problems.  It's not an either-or question, current system or government price control.  There's a lot of "solutions" floating around out there that, again, are backed by folks with actual education and credentials that I don't have (Economics degrees, that sort of thing).  What I'm getting at is that it seems silly for people who don't have education or credentials in the relevant fields to claim to know which actual accredited experts are biased and which are pure and correct.  It's also very suspicious that, in my experience, 99 times out of 100 the experts that people claim to know to be the correct experts are the experts that support the rhetoric of the party those same people support.  Is it coincidence that the scientists and economists most people believe just -happen- to be the ones that share their world views?
> ...



One could make that argument, certainly.  I would respond by arguing that with a truly open mind, one would look upon issues where many experts have opinions that contradict each other and be forced to admit to one's self that one's level of knowledge is severely inadequate to accomplish the task of deciding which of those experts are correct and which are not.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe, though.  If you find someone's explanation compelling, then you do, and that's fine by me.  I'm also not telling anyone to keep those beliefs to themselves.  Just stating, in this case, that there's very little chance that you could be anywhere near certain of the truth of that belief without being an expert in economics, the health care industry, or both



Vidi said:


> Then theres also the "guilty by association" mindset. If one group is the proponent of a world view that the individual feels isnt supported by facts, they are then less likely to believe that group has a grasp on facts about other issues as well and that the group they agree with on one issue might just be the group who has the answer on another issue.



It's certainly a normal thing for humans to do, but unfortunately it amounts to attributing a monopoly on philosophical truth to some person or group, which is potentially quite harmful.  Again, purely up to you.  For some people, taking, on faith, what someone says to be definitively true without indisputable logic or proof is an ability in which one should take pride.  For me, however, it amounts to a degree of gullibility.  Any time I catch a hint of gullibility in my thinking I cut it out of my thought processes like a tumor.

Only my own brain is ever acknowledged as the final arbiter of what I believe to be true.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 27, 2012)

I usually like to wait for awhile before posting a source.  Way more fun watching the lefties dig a huge hole first.  Besides, they will just deny the facts and deflect per SOP.


----------



## regent (Apr 27, 2012)

Do corporations contribute campaign funds to politicians that compromise?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 27, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...




All excellent points but don't we HAVE to be adequate in distinguishing which experts to believe? 

As voters, if we are unable to make that distinction, then we are unable to cast a vote based on correct data. So isnt it incumbent upon us to discover which experts are reliable and which ones are not?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Sometimes people truly are knowledgeable enough in an area, despite not being an accredited expert, to make an educated stab at which set of experts is correct, but I would argue that this is often not the case.  In these matters I apply Socratic principle, personally.  When I have information that isn't, by my standards, sufficiently plentiful for making a call one way or another on an issue, I simply admit that I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. . . and then I don't.  Where it appears on the ballet, I leave a blank box.  It's this philosophy that's led me to despise the "Get Out the Vote" campaign on MTV.  I wanna start my own campaign. . . "Uninformed?  Stay Home in November!"

"I don't know the answer to that" is really something that more Americans need to allow into their vocabulary.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 28, 2012)

regent said:


> Do corporations contribute campaign funds to politicians that compromise?



Politicians that compromise gave us such corporatist favorites as NAFTA and GATT.  I would venture to guess that the corporations grasping for puppet strings on both sides of the isle contribute campaign funds -especially- to politicians that compromise.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 28, 2012)

Politicians do not serve in a vacuum. They represent constituencies and they listen to lobbyists of which we all are in some way or about an issue we care about.  They (at least most of them) have core values and moral standards that influence their vote. "Compromise" is a word losers use when the vote doesn't turn out their way. The most ironic quote in history came out of the 1992 riots when an obviously shaken Rodney King got on TV and said "can't we all just get along" while the city was in flames and thousands were assaulted and 54 people lay dead because people were disappointed about the verdict in a trial.


----------



## regent (Apr 29, 2012)

A democracy seldom devises a bill that is even close to what it should be. The bill, and soon the law, is a bundle of compromises with lots of cooks each adding their portion. The result-a law that almost  works, but then as time passes the law is improved, added to, changed and so on, but never perfected. Add to that, other factors change, the population, the economy, needs and the law is altered again to meet those changes. How many times has Social Security been altered since 1935, and it still needs revision? What would a health care bill look like, it it was only written to take care of America's health care needs?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 29, 2012)

Our representatives need to compromise in order for our government to function. It's that simple. But the politicians and pundits have done SUCH a good job of polarizing us, that many people don't even remember that simple fact. 300 million people are never going to all agree on something completely. Good laws have been passed through compromise and yes, as regent so astutely points out, they are usually polished up after passage. 

It's a shame that the manipulators have done such a good job of deflecting blame off themselves by pitting us against each other, that so many people have bought into it.


----------



## Intense (Apr 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?



Yes, when you can do it without abandoning principle. For example a compromise that involves a small step, rather than no step, when you don't have the support for a big step. Should either side sell out principle? No, not when it is genuine. Do concerns have to be weighed and given priority? Very much so. Do we need to spend beyond our means to effect change? Yes. Do we need to do it iin the dark, effectively blindfolded? Not at all. There is no substitute for Competence.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Our representatives need to compromise in order for our government to function. It's that simple. But the politicians and pundits have done SUCH a good job of polarizing us, that many people don't even remember that simple fact. 300 million people are never going to all agree on something completely. Good laws have been passed through compromise and yes, as regent so astutely points out, they are usually polished up after passage.
> 
> It's a shame that the manipulators have done such a good job of deflecting blame off themselves by pitting us against each other, that so many people have bought into it.



I'll give you one thing...You are an ace at vague and vapid platitudes.


----------



## Intense (Apr 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Our representatives need to compromise in order for our government to function. It's that simple. But the politicians and pundits have done SUCH a good job of polarizing us, that many people don't even remember that simple fact. 300 million people are never going to all agree on something completely. Good laws have been passed through compromise and yes, as regent so astutely points out, they are usually polished up after passage.
> 
> It's a shame that the manipulators have done such a good job of deflecting blame off themselves by pitting us against each other, that so many people have bought into it.



Sorry to disagree. Poorly thought out Laws, poorly worded Laws, are the Tyrant's Friend. They enable him to act before the People even realize what's going on, let alone construct and apply a remedy. Better to get it as right as we can, before passage,somethings just cannot be undone that easily. No matter which side of the Aisle one supports, we each face consequence. Law and Justice, is supposed to be about what is Right, which is not always the case in relation to what is popular, or the flavor of the day. Grownups should know better.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 29, 2012)

Republicans who find it necessary or expedient to compromise with democrats will soon find themselves replaced by republicans who won't.  It is just that simple.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2012)

Someone care to explain how driving the country to a compromise that results in lower standards, higher debt and an unproductive citizenry helps?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 29, 2012)

Oddball said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Our representatives need to compromise in order for our government to function. It's that simple. But the politicians and pundits have done SUCH a good job of polarizing us, that many people don't even remember that simple fact. 300 million people are never going to all agree on something completely. Good laws have been passed through compromise and yes, as regent so astutely points out, they are usually polished up after passage.
> ...



Well THANKS Oddball! Hey, maybe someday when you're allllll growed up, you can post about an issue! Or a topic! 
I mean, it's very flattering that you go from thread to thread posting about me! You're like having a little brother or a puppy or something. Someone not quite smart enough to talk with grown-ups so they just follow their superiors and bark, hoping to get a little attention. Well oddball, very nice post! <pat on head> You are a gooood boy!


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 29, 2012)

Intense said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Our representatives need to compromise in order for our government to function. It's that simple. But the politicians and pundits have done SUCH a good job of polarizing us, that many people don't even remember that simple fact. 300 million people are never going to all agree on something completely. Good laws have been passed through compromise and yes, as regent so astutely points out, they are usually polished up after passage.
> ...



Well I have to respect a civil and well-reasoned post - even if we disagree. Which I still do. Let's look at Oil Subsidies. I am against giving special tax breaks or subsidies to ANY company, farm etc... but would compromise if the company A) Hired 100% American workers and B) Paid taxes 100% in America.
Someone else might have a different idea. The GOP seems rally intent on pointing their finger at teh Dems over farm subsidies while they support them for Big Oil. The Dems point their fingers at the GOP over subsidies to Big Oil while they support farm subsidies. 
YOu can't tell me there's not a compromise in there somewhere. But by convincing us to believe they SHOULDN'T compromise, both sides get to keep pointing their fingers and keep giving away our money.
As far as making sure a law is absolutely perfect as passed, can you name one in the last 100 years that would be a good example of this? Sometimes you don't know where the flaw or hole is until application occurs.
The key words in the post were "for the good of the country".


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



I think people are so jaded that they have given up on the idea of compromise.  [ame=www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNbii3mbhM] The Zax [/ame]


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?




This country would be better off if Congress never did anything.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 29, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



I agree. the easily duped have been convinced that everything is "the other side's fault!" by the people whose fault it is - the Democrats and Republicans. The Congress that quit working for us long ago.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> I agree. the easily duped have been convinced that everything is "the other side's fault!" by the people whose fault it is - the Democrats and Republicans. The Congress that quit working for us long ago.



As much as I am an advocate of small government, etc....I still realize that compromise is needed if we are to stay united.  Its like a marriage.   It won't last if there is no compromise.  It seems like there are a lot of people that would like to have a divorce at this point.  Succession?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 29, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. the easily duped have been convinced that everything is "the other side's fault!" by the people whose fault it is - the Democrats and Republicans. The Congress that quit working for us long ago.
> ...


Compromise is no longer called for....Noncompliance is.

Compliance with tyrants is acquiescence to them.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...


Piss off,  supercilious dickweed.

You want to pretend that tyrants are worth compromising with, then you'll get the enslavement that you deserve.

And if you want to pretend that vague platitudinous bullshit is ever any kind of remotely logical thought, then you'll continue to be enslaved by your own image in the pond.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 29, 2012)

Oddball said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




LOL!!! Settle down little puppy <another affectionate pat on the head> . You're quite the angry little puppy, aren't you!?!?
So here, let me give you a little reality because you know, as your new BFnBB (BEst Friend n Big Brother) it is my responsibility to help raise you!
Okay so. Don't worry l'il bro, I will not be a slave. I own my own company and have operated it while living in countries outside the USA before. We've actually thought about moving to Belize after my daughter heads off to the college of her choice. it's even in the same time zone! Isn't that nice?
Now. You already compromise with our government every day. It's called obeying the laws. You don't shoot people, steal things etc... At least I'll assume you don't. If you are doing these things, you're parents are going to be VERY upset young man! 
So what we grown-ups were talking about, is a government that functions. It's complicated. I suggest you find a nearby Liberal Elitistist and ask them to explain it to you. 
Now you just take a few deep breaths and oh, I dunno, maybe drink some nice relaxing tea. Think more positive thoughts! And know that your new Big Brother and puppy owner is here for you baby!


----------



## Oddball (Apr 29, 2012)

Fuck you, jerk.

You're the one still stupid enough to believe that you can compromise with tyrants...That you can mollify those who want it all by giving them the mythical half-a-loaf.

I gave up such puerile presumptions long, long ago.

Those people -regardless of party- are not and haven't been our servants in a long time...They are not, and have no intention upon being, your friends....They want you as their personal plaything.

When they "compromise", you lose.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your foolhardiness.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 30, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Fuck you, jerk.
> 
> You're the one still stupid enough to believe that you can compromise with tyrants...That you can mollify those who want it all by giving them the mythical half-a-loaf.
> 
> ...



Okay now puppy, I want you to calm down. You're rather hysterical and although you're pretty much ALWAYS in hysterics, I'm worried about you. 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Oddball>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There! There's a big hug to make you feel all better! Now back to reality. You compromise with our government every day as is demonstrated by the fact that you live here, obey the laws, pay your taxes and so on. So you just kick those little feeties all you want but that is the reality and even your most hysterical little tanrums won't change that. So while you stomp around your mom's basement or wherever you live, you can take comfort in the realization that I, your New BFF and Big Brother, will always be here to protect you from those darn enslavers!!!


----------



## Oddball (Apr 30, 2012)

Reality: You are a slave and need  ways to rationalize the hallucination that you are free.

You'll be the one camping on the sidewalk overnight, so you can be the first on your block to have a UPC tattooed onto your forehead.

Naaawww...That's not right.....You're the type of nitwit who'd pay extra to have someone come to your home and do a custom job.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 30, 2012)

Money=Freedom


----------



## Oddball (Apr 30, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> Money=Freedom


Not when I can't take it where I want, when I want.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 30, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Reality: You are a slave and need  ways to rationalize the hallucination that you are free.
> 
> You'll be the one camping on the sidewalk overnight, so you can be the first on your block to have a UPC tattooed onto your forehead.
> 
> Naaawww...That's not right.....You're the type of nitwit who'd pay extra to have someone come to your home and do a custom job.



LOL! I'm the kind of guy who oh, let's see. Owns a business. Travels where I want, when I want, with as much money as I want. You know, stuff you dream about. That's probably why you're always so hysterically angry. Poor baby.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 30, 2012)

Just as long as you're a good little kapo.


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Another Key Phrase is "Don't compromise your Principle". How about "Don't Corrupt Principle. I'm not suggesting "Don't Compromise", not at all. We have strayed too far. We need a change in direction, baby steps, big steps,  what ever we can get support on.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 1, 2012)

This pretty much sums it up:

The Independent's View: The Divided States of America


----------



## Foxfyre (May 1, 2012)

As long as 'compromise' means that the GOP sit in the back, as our Fearless Leader has said they should do, and let the Democrats call all the shots, then no, there should be no compromise.  We did not elect our Republican representatives to go to Washington to be Democrats.  We elected them because they said they were committed to certain principles and goals that made them different from Democrats.

If all we want is compromise, why not do away with the GOP altogether and just elect Democrats who will march in lockstep together?


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> As long as 'compromise' means that the GOP sit in the back, as our Fearless Leader has said they should do, and let the Democrats call all the shots, then no, there should be no compromise.  We did not elect our Republican representatives to go to Washington to be Democrats.  We elected them because they said they were committed to certain principles and goals that made them different from Democrats.
> 
> If all we want is compromise, why not do away with the GOP altogether and just elect Democrats who will march in lockstep together?



Do you think Bush and the GOP did the same thing, back in the day? Do you think the GOP does the same thing now? 

I do. I'd be happy to name a couple examples if you like. Both sides do the same thing.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> As long as 'compromise' means that the GOP sit in the back, as our Fearless Leader has said they should do, and let the Democrats call all the shots, then no, there should be no compromise.  We did not elect our Republican representatives to go to Washington to be Democrats.  We elected them because they said they were committed to certain principles and goals that made them different from Democrats.
> 
> If all we want is compromise, why not do away with the GOP altogether and just elect Democrats who will march in lockstep together?



Having said this, which I will stand behind, there are circumstances in which compromise is appropriate.

It took our Founders, for instance, seven long years of intense debate, discussion, disagreement, argument, and persuasion to get a fairly large group of hiighly educated and brilliant men of broadly diverse opiinions to agree on the document that is our Constitution.

Nobody got everything he wanted.  It wasn't easy for many of them to concede some points that were passionately felt.   But in the end, they accomplished a document that would best meet the goal on which they all could agree:  that people have unalienable rights that no government should touch, and the role of the federal government would be to secure and protect those rights and then otherwise leave the people alone for form whatever society they wished to have and seek whatever brass ring they wanted to reach for.

America would be the first nation in the history of the world with no king, monarch, pharoah, emperor, dictator, or other form of totalitarian government.

I wish Democrats and Republicans would get together and find ways to compromise to further that concept.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 1, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > As long as 'compromise' means that the GOP sit in the back, as our Fearless Leader has said they should do, and let the Democrats call all the shots, then no, there should be no compromise.  We did not elect our Republican representatives to go to Washington to be Democrats.  We elected them because they said they were committed to certain principles and goals that made them different from Democrats.
> ...



That wasn't the question in the OP was it?  If you want to analyze the differences between the Democrats and GOP, then you should have said that.

Otherwise let's stick with the question of whether or how much we want compromise which is a very different question and a far more interesting one.


----------



## saveliberty (May 1, 2012)

Compromise on how much wasteful spending to cut is one thing.  Compromising principles or the financial future of our citizens and nation, not so much.


----------



## Oddball (May 1, 2012)

Let's compromise with this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJtXhl5nPDo]'60 Minutes' Asks Nancy Pelosi About Her Involving With Credit Card Companies - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc]Pelosi Scoffs When Asked Where Constitution Authorizes Ordering Americans To Buy Health Insurance - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco]Alan Grayson on the GOP Health Care Plan: "Don't Get Sick! And if You Do Get Sick, Die Quickly!"' - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCi4I4vxqBQ&feature=related]Reid's cowboy poetry crusade - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH87c0h4WK8]Obama: Republicans Want 'Dirtier Air, Dirtier Water' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actually, see the bold of your quote above. _You're_ the one who started the "It's all THEIR fault!" thing. 
I'm just curious to see whether you're objective. Thus far, when asked whether the same tactics _you_ object to so vociferously in Dems, being used by Republicans, you suddenly change the subject. 
That would lead one to believe that your first reply is lacking both objectivity. 
Similar to Oddball's collection of videos which I'm sure are fascinating but which I'm also equally sure shed negative light on _only_ the Democrats. While I'm sure the extreme Right Wingers will find his posts worth reading, anyone else would see nothing of substance or credibility. It's not like I couldn't post dozens of similar vids of Republicans acting represensibly. 
People know that _both_ have serious flaws and have acted against the best interest of the country, because of party. Well, objective people do anyway.


----------



## Oddball (May 1, 2012)

Well, since you're such a big fuckin' noise in Nevada, why don't you get Harry Reid on the blower and lay all that inescapable logic and suave platitudinous bullshit about compromising and not being all divisive on him, and report back to us on how you make out?

I mean really...You don't honestly believe that posting all your navel contemplating crapola on some interweb message board is going to get any action, do you?

C'mon, hop to it!....Show us all that you're not just some big fucking bag of wind!


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 1, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Well, since you're such a big fuckin' noise in Nevada, why don't you get Harry Reid on the blower and lay all that inescapable logic and suave platitudinous bullshit about compromising and not being all divisive on him, and report back to us on how you make out?
> 
> I mean really...You don't honestly believe that posting all your navel contemplating crapola on some interweb message board is going to get any action, do you?
> 
> C'mon, hop to it!....Show us all that you're not just some big fucking bag of wind!



LOL! Now OddyBaby, calm down. You're getting hysterical again. Boy I sure got under your skin didn't I?!?!?! You know that you have come into every single thread I've posted on and posted at least once or twice only about me? Poor little guy. I hate to see you all worked up like this.
Oh and Oddy, regardless of how powerful you think I am, I can't just tell Harry Reid what to do.
I come here for a couple reasons. One is to engage in civil and intelligent discussions and debates with people like Foxfire. While she and I often disagree, there are things we can agree on and we certainly don't need to lower ourselves to the level of the inferior posters here. They're good for a lot of "LOL"s but it's not like "they" are to be taken seriously. 
Oh and btw, I would have gladly voted against Reid. I despise both he and Pelosi. Unfortunately, the GOP decided to put a real oddball on the ticket. Sharon Angle. She was proof the whackjobs took over the local GOP. There is certainly evidence that NV is not the only place where whackjobs rule the party. Hell, there are nutcases who come here and rarely even discuss the topics. Instead, they just follow around particular posters who have obviously just spanked them like a little girl, and post about those people. 

In the mean time, our representatives must be willing to compromise in order to get things done. As I mentioned in my earlier response to you, it would be like trying to operate a business without being willing to... oh nevermind. You don't do topics and issues, do you. Sorry little buddy! I forgot!

Hugs & Kisses,

Your BFF


----------

