We can't compromise! We can't collaborate! We can't cooperate!

[Mac1958]

Thanks for the lesson in adulting, Mac. How is that 10 year experiment coming along? Any helpful conclusions yet?

I'm sure this means something.

Too many people like this, with too much influence.
.

There is not too much I can compromise on.


The goal of the other side is to permanently marginalize and oppress me and my people.


Before Trump they were openly gloating that "the next Republican President hasn't been born yet".


What can I do with that?

Sometimes it means just not getting what you want. Maybe you're just wrong on some things, and the other guys will be proven right.

Or maybe by working together we'll come up with new approaches. It sure works in the business world. Innovation.

But we get nowhere if the goal is to beat the other side. Then it becomes party over country.
.

What if the other party wants slavery? Genocide? Or something morally reprehensible?

I have no problem compromising and working on things that I believe will make the community and nation better. I don’t see any value in compromising or collaborating to do things contrary to my values or that I think will hurt people

Some ideas, and some people, wouldn't be part of the process.

And maybe you're wrong about this notion or that. Or maybe after collaborating with someone, you and they will come up with something new.

I don't know what else to say here.
.

 

[bripat9643]

Evading the question yet again.

It really is simple. I want less government, leftists want more government. Isn't the compromise to that in your terms to leave it where it is?

Does a compromise to more versus left government to you mean

1) More government (but less than leftists want)

2) The same government

3) Less government (but less than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

Oh boy, straw man.

Again: You're right. Don't collaborate. Don't talk to them. Don't go near them.

I think you've got this nailed. You're right. I'm wrong.
.

Give me a single meaningful example of any issue the left was willing to compromise on over the last 30 years.

Note: Compromise does not mean they get some of what they want and give nothing in return and compromise does not mean they gave up something they didn't have, like your Obamacare example

I told you: You win. No collaboration. Innovation is bad. New ideas are bad.

You win.
.

There are no new ideas in government. There are only new rationalizations for it.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

Oh boy, straw man.

Again: You're right. Don't collaborate. Don't talk to them. Don't go near them.

I think you've got this nailed. You're right. I'm wrong.
.

Give me a single meaningful example of any issue the left was willing to compromise on over the last 30 years.

Note: Compromise does not mean they get some of what they want and give nothing in return and compromise does not mean they gave up something they didn't have, like your Obamacare example

I told you: You win. No collaboration. Innovation is bad. New ideas are bad.

You win.
.

There are no new ideas in government. There are only new rationalizations for it.

Okay!
.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

The two ends are choosing to hate each other. No one is making this happen.

So we may need each of them to get their shit together before asking them to work together.
.

I don’t think we have to hate people we disagree with.

However, it's normal to hate people who lie all the time so they can screw you over.

 

[edthecynic]

You don't compromise with liberal traitors you defeat them.

Another mindless DittoTard parroting their MessiahRushie's BS.

 

[edthecynic]

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence".

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

Adolf Hitler

 

[Mac1958]

It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence".

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

Adolf Hitler

Yes, I am Hitler. Or whatever you want.
.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal.

quotes from your hero?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence".

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

Adolf Hitler

Actions speak louder than words
Liberals action dictate what category they belong in
BigRebNC1861

 

[edthecynic]

Struck a nerve on both ends, again.

Illustrating the first line of my sig, again.

yes, the one thing the left and right can agree upon is that you are a pretentious douchebag.

Mac should be happy he brought both sides together, but oddly enough, he's not!!!!!

 

[Seawytch]

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation, the level of corporate taxation, the size of the military, the level of government involvement in health care, the various departments, on and on and on.

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked.
.

I'm on the "left" and I can give you an example.

Analysis | Schumer offered Trump something Democrats hate for something Republicans broadly like

 

[edthecynic]

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal.

quotes from your hero?

Quotes from YOUR master!

 

[Mac1958]

Struck a nerve on both ends, again.

Illustrating the first line of my sig, again.

yes, the one thing the left and right can agree upon is that you are a pretentious douchebag.

Mac should be happy he brought both sides together, but oddly enough, he's not!!!!!

You folks illustrate my point for me daily.

And while I do appreciate your help, while I do enjoy being right, you're correct - I'm not happy with what you're doing to this country.
.

 

[Pete7469]

There is not too much I can compromise on.


The goal of the other side is to permanently marginalize and oppress me and my people.


Before Trump they were openly gloating that "the next Republican President hasn't been born yet".


What can I do with that?

Sometimes it means just not getting what you want. Maybe you're just wrong on some things, and the other guys will be proven right.

Or maybe by working together we'll come up with new approaches. It sure works in the business world. Innovation.

But we get nowhere if the goal is to beat the other side. Then it becomes party over country.
.

Sometimes it means just not getting what you want. Maybe you're just wrong on some things,

OK, where in the political issue arena are the opponents of the democrook party wrong? What democrook policy agenda has resulted in a prosperous outcome? All I can see when it comes to liberal governance is Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit ETC. When it comes to leftwing countries it's always a failed state. China is embracing a centrally run capitalist system that's not doing badly in a country whose cultures have a history of working towards a higher standard of living as a collective. If they were forced to dump collectivism because it doesn't work, we're full of shit to believe our country can do it.

That's not our culture, and I don't want ours warped to fit the globalist agenda.

and the other guys will be proven right.

Ok...

After the purges of how many millions by leftists will they be proven right?

How many countries have to be destroyed?

How many millions of the people fleeing from these failing leftist states from Bolivia, all the way up do we have to allow in the US when they're the ones who allowed leftists to take power?

How many cities need to be destroyed?

Let me know the limits here when it comes to leftist failure before we can finally say, OK, that sucks, we're not doing it anymore?


Or maybe by working together we'll come up with new approaches. It sure works in the business world. Innovation.

You mean like Fascism?

They tried it. Called it a 3rd way. Too much central government/corporate corruption. Like here, except the government pushes gayness rather than oppresses it. It's a turd way. The fascists were still collectivists, just not on a globalist scale the communists in Moscow wanted. It didn't go well for them and it didn't go well for us. It's time to dump that bullshit.

The federal central government needs to be restrained like it was long ago. The states can pick up the slack.

But we get nowhere if the goal is to beat the other side. Then it becomes party over country.

Not when it comes to right and wrong. You can damn well see when something is wrong when the same thing happens over and over as a result of the same ideas. It's all about the country We do not want to see the whole fuckin thing shit the bed like everything else moonbats govern.

As far as I'm concerned the results speak the truth, the truth needs to be told, the left needs to be rejected intellectually, electorally and cultural. Snuffed out, ridiculed to extinction and contained to the eastern hemisphere with the fuckin muslims.


.

 

[Mac1958]

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation, the level of corporate taxation, the size of the military, the level of government involvement in health care, the various departments, on and on and on.

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked.
.

I'm on the "left" and I can give you an example.

Analysis | Schumer offered Trump something Democrats hate for something Republicans broadly like

Is that an example of collaboration? Did Trump agree?
.

 

[kaz]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You must not know any liberals. I don't want more gov't.
I know lots of liberals and they don't want more gov't, either.
They want the health care system fixed.
They want the war to end in Afghanistan.
They want the tax relief they were supposed to get, but didn't. Increase in take-home pay was only 2.2%+/- (Here's exactly how much paychecks changed after tax reform for people at every income level from $20,000 to $269,000 a year)
They want immigration reform without putting kids in cages and babies in "tender age" centers where they have disappeared, 3000 to-date.
They don't want a trade war. If the economy was so good, like Trump boasts, why is he fucking it up now? Why did Gary Cohn quit?
They don't want assholes like Pruitt in the EPA. Good riddance to filth.
They want millennials to be able to buy houses and have children. That's not happening due to student loan scam and their debt.
Pretty simple stuff.
Oh, and they don't want a lying, petty, 24/7 Tweeting 14-year-old in the Oval Office who has the highest turn-over in administration in the last 100 years.

From the Brookings Institute, not exactly a bastion of liberal thought:
Trump’s lies corrode democracy

Like most on the right, conservatives know only lies about ‘liberals.’

And there can be no ‘compromise’ in a political environment so poisoned by lies contrived and propagated by a Republican president and Congressional Republicans.

You have no self awareness

 

[Seawytch]

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation, the level of corporate taxation, the size of the military, the level of government involvement in health care, the various departments, on and on and on.

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked.
.

I'm on the "left" and I can give you an example.

Analysis | Schumer offered Trump something Democrats hate for something Republicans broadly like

Is that an example of collaboration? Did Trump agree?
.

It was, yet again, another example of Democrats trying to compromise with Republicans and Republicans, yet again, refusing to do so.

 

[edthecynic]

Couldn't agree more. I remember the debates with Mac about Hillary whom he pretty much claimed to loathe, yet he pulled the lever.

If you believe him, I don't!

 

[Mac1958]

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation, the level of corporate taxation, the size of the military, the level of government involvement in health care, the various departments, on and on and on.

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked.
.

I'm on the "left" and I can give you an example.

Analysis | Schumer offered Trump something Democrats hate for something Republicans broadly like

Is that an example of collaboration? Did Trump agree?
.

It was, yet again, another example of Democrats trying to compromise with Republicans and Republicans, yet again, refusing to do so.

Okay, the Democrats are off the hook then! Thanks!
.