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

[kaz]

You already gave your 100,000 foot answer. I'm trying to get policy examples out of you and can't get it

I already answered that. In business, there aren't ideologues like leftists are who won't compromise with anyone. No leftist can even state what a libertarian is. They are incapable of saying the words. We're Republicans to them. That's it. Republicans can usually say what a libertarian is and they are clear that we aren't conservatives or leftists. They get that. How do you negotiate with that? I say I'm pro-choice to a leftist, then they say I'm a Republican therefore I'm pro-choice. Bodecea the idiot does that all the time. When I say I'm pro-choice to a Republican, they say oh, you're pro-choice

What I gave you was a template for discussing any issue.

Do you not get that?
.

I think I clearly do get that since it's what I keep saying. You're staying at 100K feet.

What you're not doing is giving a single meaningful use of your "template."

Leftists want more government in every area. I want less government in any area. I asked you a simple question how then we reach a compromise where clearly in that case there would be a winner and a loser. Every time I ask that, you stay at 100K feet

You first have to understand that "more" or "less" government is not binary. "The government" is massive, with all kinds of moving parts.

For example, if you want "less government", does that mean less Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines? Fewer cops?

When an issue is complicated, you have to break it up into bite-sized pieces. No issue is monolithic. You want more military? Why? Okay, if you both agree, we need to drop spending somewhere else. They want more of Spending on X, why?

God damn, seriously, this is terribly basic stuff. This really is troubling. Do you never have to communicate with people who don't agree with you when working on something?
.

"For example, if you want "less government", does that mean less "

- Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines? - Yes, and I already addressed this. Leftists want less military only when Republicans are in power. Obama was every bit the war hawk that W was. But mostly I'm talking about social spending which is a lot more clear and why you avoided it

Fewer cops? - I'm at the Federal level. I would cut federal then State governments would grow and replace a lot of those services. But not as much as the Federal government does.

"God damn, seriously, this is terribly basic stuff." I keep saying that. By staying at 100K feet, you're staying too basic for your argument to have meaning.

Anyone in business who claimed to have a "template" with no specific example of how it would actually be used would be tossed out on their ear

My business clients and readers know that isn't true. Even the tiny bit I gave you would get them going, just fine.

One fundamental requirement of effective communication is desire. You just don't have that.
.

You don't think businesses require people presenting templates require specific examples of their actual use? Obviously you don't know what the shit you're talking about

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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

Reaching across the isle will get you a bloody stub. So why try?

 

[edthecynic]

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

Correct. And they compromised into that weird Frankenstein's monster instead of going with what they really wanted.
.

No NOT correct! Your Right-wing is showing.

The Dems compromised and compromised with the GOP, but every time the Dems compromised the GOP wanted more. GOP members of the famous Gang Of Six like Grassley and Enzi were just trying to gum up the works. They were stalling while waiting for Kennedy to die.

 

[Mac1958]

What I gave you was a template for discussing any issue.

Do you not get that?
.

I think I clearly do get that since it's what I keep saying. You're staying at 100K feet.

What you're not doing is giving a single meaningful use of your "template."

Leftists want more government in every area. I want less government in any area. I asked you a simple question how then we reach a compromise where clearly in that case there would be a winner and a loser. Every time I ask that, you stay at 100K feet

You first have to understand that "more" or "less" government is not binary. "The government" is massive, with all kinds of moving parts.

For example, if you want "less government", does that mean less Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines? Fewer cops?

When an issue is complicated, you have to break it up into bite-sized pieces. No issue is monolithic. You want more military? Why? Okay, if you both agree, we need to drop spending somewhere else. They want more of Spending on X, why?

God damn, seriously, this is terribly basic stuff. This really is troubling. Do you never have to communicate with people who don't agree with you when working on something?
.

"For example, if you want "less government", does that mean less "

- Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines? - Yes, and I already addressed this. Leftists want less military only when Republicans are in power. Obama was every bit the war hawk that W was. But mostly I'm talking about social spending which is a lot more clear and why you avoided it

Fewer cops? - I'm at the Federal level. I would cut federal then State governments would grow and replace a lot of those services. But not as much as the Federal government does.

"God damn, seriously, this is terribly basic stuff." I keep saying that. By staying at 100K feet, you're staying too basic for your argument to have meaning.

Anyone in business who claimed to have a "template" with no specific example of how it would actually be used would be tossed out on their ear

My business clients and readers know that isn't true. Even the tiny bit I gave you would get them going, just fine.

One fundamental requirement of effective communication is desire. You just don't have that.
.

You don't think businesses require people presenting templates require specific examples of their actual use? Obviously you don't know what the shit you're talking about

Of course. If I gave a manager just the little bit I gave you, they'd be able to run with it.

Why? Because it's all the same theme: Drop the ego, open your mind, practice some emotional intelligence, get the shit done.

This isn't complicated, but I do realize that partisan ideology tends to distort perceptions and thought processes.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

Correct. And they compromised into that weird Frankenstein's monster instead of going with what they really wanted.
.

No NOT correct! Your Right-wing is showing.

The Dems compromised and compromised with the GOP, but every time the Dems compromised the GOP wanted more. GOP members of the famous Gang Of Six like Grassley and Enzi were just trying to gum up the works. They were stalling while waiting for Kennedy to die.

I already told you I'm Hitler, thanks.
.

 

[edthecynic]

Who did they compromise with? Certainly they didn't compromise with the Republicans.

Typical Right-wing revisionist history as if there was no Gang Of Six. How can you compromise with people who just lie about everything?

 

[JoeB131]

The other side is committed to permanently marginalizing me and my people.

Rednecks?

And then jacking up the already existing forms of discrimination to eleven.

Yes, Poor White People are so put upon. It's why they have most of the wealth, most of the positions of power, etc.

Give me a fucking break.

 

[edthecynic]

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

Correct. And they compromised into that weird Frankenstein's monster instead of going with what they really wanted.
.

No NOT correct! Your Right-wing is showing.

The Dems compromised and compromised with the GOP, but every time the Dems compromised the GOP wanted more. GOP members of the famous Gang Of Six like Grassley and Enzi were just trying to gum up the works. They were stalling while waiting for Kennedy to die.

I already told you I'm Hitler, thanks.
.

So as usual you have nothing factual to offer.

 

[edthecynic]

Thy would Republicans "collaborate" in the destruction of America?

Yeah, the GOP is already collaborating with Russia for that!

 

[JoeB131]

As you know, I hold the Regressive Left accountable constantly here. Why even try that?

Because you won't man up and admit that you Democratic Establishment types who shoved Hillary down the throats of the rank and file goofed it up?

 

[edthecynic]

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

"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". ""

That was before 2015 and the descent on the escalator in His Majesty's palace on 5th Avenue. And the lies that followed, and the denial of those lie by the idiots who voted for him.

Trump does not evoke neutral feelings....from anyone. And he never did.

To leftists, a compromise is when you only get some of what you wanted and the other side gets nothing and all you do is bitch about what you wanted and didn't get

More mindless parroting of your MessiahRushie's lies.

 

[deanrd]

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

Yea, let's compromise with people who rip babies from their mother's arms.

Let's compromise with people who feel attacking gays is a good thing.

Let's compromise with people who want to end school lunches for poor children, healthcare and want to give more tax cuts to corporations and needy billionaires.

Let's compromise with people who want dirty air and dirty water.

Compromise is the exact wrong thing. These people must be defeated. To save this nation, these people must be defeated.

 

[JoeB131]

Neither the founders, nor the U.S. Constitution declared a single thing about Blacks. The 3/5 determination, related to slaves, and was a compromise between the Northern states and the Southern states over how to count slaves in determining the number of representatives that the state was entitled to.

Oh, so you say, "all men are created equal", and then you declare that some men (namely the black ones who are owned by other people) are only 3/5th in terms of counting people and have no rights at all...

Um... yeah... got it.

I'm sorry you don't see how fucked up that is.

The ironic thing is that if Washington ended up at the end of a rope, slavery in America would have ended a lot sooner without a civil war and 100 years of Jim Crow.

But Compromise... that's the important thing according to Stormy Mac.

 

[Mac1958]

Compromise is the exact wrong thing. These people must be defeated. To save this nation, these people must be defeated.

Yep, that's what the other "side" says, too. Nailed it.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

At the time, the Liberals and democrat Party were planning to steal the Founders hats

 

[Leo123]

Yea, let's compromise with people who rip babies from their mother's arms.

Let's compromise with people who feel attacking gays is a good thing.

Let's compromise with people who want to end school lunches for poor children, healthcare and want to give more tax cuts to corporations and needy billionaires.

Let's compromise with people who want dirty air and dirty water.

Compromise is the exact wrong thing. These people must be defeated. To save this nation, these people must be defeated.

Problem is, those 'people' only exist in your mind. Get help.

 

[edthecynic]

That's right. Democrats have to be defeated. We're not on the same side.

Which is pure Fascism. The Fascist sees only 2 sides, their side and the enemy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

Correct. And they compromised into that weird Frankenstein's monster instead of going with what they really wanted.
.

No NOT correct! Your Right-wing is showing.

The Dems compromised and compromised with the GOP, but every time the Dems compromised the GOP wanted more. GOP members of the famous Gang Of Six like Grassley and Enzi were just trying to gum up the works. They were stalling while waiting for Kennedy to die.

The Dims compromised with other Dims, not the GOP.

 

[Mac1958]

Never have I had a thread illustrate the first line of my sig this clearly for me.

Ever. Not even close.

 

[bripat9643]

That's right. Democrats have to be defeated. We're not on the same side.

Which is pure Fascism. The Fascist sees only 2 sides, their side and the enemy.

So the Dims are fascists?