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

[kaz]

I do love wingers who keep an imaginary scoreboard in their heads to prop up their self esteem.


.

When has the left ever compromised?

The farm bill, prior to now. 911 legislation, immigration (Schumer gave Trump his wall for DACA...Trump changed his mind at the last minute)

You need to provide two links and you have none.

How did Democrats compromise on "the farm bill?"

When did Schummer give Trump the wall for DACA?

it was republicans that compromised.

Compromise was by both. And giving Trump his wall was absolute compromise.

And Democrats gave up what?

 

[kaz]

A majority voted against Hillary too.

You may want to read up on how elections are run in this country since you, Hillary and Al Gore don't know. Here you go since you don't know how to use Google either.

Again, a dumb system by slave rapists in the 18th century isn't a mandate from the people.

Nobody is impressed that you found a cheat code.

The Electoral College is working perfectly and as intended. It countered your beloved tyranny of the majority protecting small States and prevented California from overturning the election by letting millions of illegal aliens vote.

Trump won the popular vote if you only count living citizens voting once. Not that it matters

 

[JoeB131]

Dumbass, the gun law is already such that none of those regulations exist. Why would I trade the current situation to a situation where you get some of what you want and I get nothing? That's not a compromise...

Well, let's see. Why would you want to trade the status quo..

Oh, yeah.
33,000 gun deaths
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 Billion in gun related economic losses

School shootings.
Every workplace is locked down like a prison camp to foil workplace shootings.

It seems like the rest of us are already giving up too much for your fetish.

A person who wants to ban all guns, except the ones the government owns. How can this person be called an American with a straight face? Wanting to take the guns of those who are not a threat. This is the land of freedom get the fck out if you don't want it. Socialist hell holes are everywhere for your benefit.

Um, guy, I've known three people who died from gun violence. None of them were a "threat" until they were. (Two suicides, one domestic violence case.)

 

[kaz]

Dumbass, the gun law is already such that none of those regulations exist. Why would I trade the current situation to a situation where you get some of what you want and I get nothing? That's not a compromise...

Well, let's see. Why would you want to trade the status quo..

Oh, yeah.
33,000 gun deaths
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 Billion in gun related economic losses

School shootings.
Every workplace is locked down like a prison camp to foil workplace shootings.

It seems like the rest of us are already giving up too much for your fetish.

You're a sick fuck that you think guns are a sex toy.

As for the rest, good point. Let's do something about guns involved in committing crimes. So far you haven't offered a plan to do that though, you've only said let's take guns away from honest citizens, not the criminals. So how are you proposing to take guns away from the criminals? I even started a thread to ask leftists what your plan is and you all had nothing. You just kept saying let's take guns away from non-criminals:

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

 

[Norman]

Dumbass, the gun law is already such that none of those regulations exist. Why would I trade the current situation to a situation where you get some of what you want and I get nothing? That's not a compromise...

Well, let's see. Why would you want to trade the status quo..

Oh, yeah.
33,000 gun deaths
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 Billion in gun related economic losses

School shootings.
Every workplace is locked down like a prison camp to foil workplace shootings.

It seems like the rest of us are already giving up too much for your fetish.

You're a sick fuck that you think guns are a sex toy.

As for the rest, good point. Let's do something about guns involved in committing crimes. So far you haven't offered a plan to do that though, you've only said let's take guns away from honest citizens, not the criminals. So how are you proposing to take guns away from the criminals? I even started a thread to ask leftists what your plan is and you all had nothing. You just kept saying let's take guns away from non-criminals:

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

The criminals vote democrat though...

 

[DustyInfinity]

Well crap, Mac might have a point. This bickering is pretty sad. Most of these arguments have sides using their own partisan sources, and facts are skewed so much they are almost made up. Schumer never offered dingus on the wall, and gun rights might actually be something people can agree on. I don't trust the left, but I don't believe they all want to take our guns. I think we could agree on safety measures that still allow citizens to defend themselves. Some common sense stuff that isn't government database. On non-economic issues, there is more middle ground than I thought. Gay marriage would be my example. I don't agree with gay marriage, but I realize that republicans were complete dicks by not budging on civil unions. Why in the world did they fight over civil unions? That was just fairness. I believe we can approach each other with common sense on non-government expansion issues. I can't stand that people use their own dubious sources, such as the Schumer wall thing. People need to use common sense and not slanted info.

 

[Pete7469]

Take an issue and show us how each side should compromise.....

Okay Gun Control.

The RIght: "Everyone should have access to an assault rifle because the Founding Fathers said so."

The Left: "Ban all guns except for people who have a need for them, such as police and military. You know, a 'well-regulated militia' like the founding fathers said."

Compromise solution- Licensed gun ownership after a thorough background check, with the privilege being revoked if you abuse it. More powerful weapons should require greater scrutiny.

Nope, nope, nope... Founding Fathers... even the sensible law to restrict the sale of military grade weapons would offend their intent that no one noticed for 200 years.

Let's take rape as an example:

A woman: Rape is bad.

A rapist: I love rape.

Compromise: One dip can't hurt, right?

 

[kaz]

Dumbass, the gun law is already such that none of those regulations exist. Why would I trade the current situation to a situation where you get some of what you want and I get nothing? That's not a compromise...

Well, let's see. Why would you want to trade the status quo..

Oh, yeah.
33,000 gun deaths
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 Billion in gun related economic losses

School shootings.
Every workplace is locked down like a prison camp to foil workplace shootings.

It seems like the rest of us are already giving up too much for your fetish.

You're a sick fuck that you think guns are a sex toy.

As for the rest, good point. Let's do something about guns involved in committing crimes. So far you haven't offered a plan to do that though, you've only said let's take guns away from honest citizens, not the criminals. So how are you proposing to take guns away from the criminals? I even started a thread to ask leftists what your plan is and you all had nothing. You just kept saying let's take guns away from non-criminals:

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

The criminals vote democrat though...

The Democrat's real issue with guns has nothing to do with criminals though. It's about government being the only ones with guns. So the reality is that taking guns from honest citizens isn't just a poorly though plan, it's their actual goal. They don't particularly want criminals armed, they just want any threat to the government disarmed

 

[Mac1958]

Well crap, Mac might have a point. This bickering is pretty sad. Most of these arguments have sides using their own partisan sources, and facts are skewed so much they are almost made up.

Worse, this behavior is a choice we're making. No one is making us behave this way, as much as we want to convince ourselves that's the case.

There are many posters here who are proud of the fact that their "side" will not collaborate with the other. I don't know how in the world someone would be proud of something like that, but that's where we are now. They're certainly the vast majority of this thread, that's for sure.
.

 

[kaz]

Well crap, Mac might have a point. This bickering is pretty sad. Most of these arguments have sides using their own partisan sources, and facts are skewed so much they are almost made up.

Worse, this behavior is a choice we're making. No one is making us behave this way, as much as we want to convince ourselves that's the case.

There are many posters here who are proud of the fact that their "side" will not collaborate with the other. I don't know how in the world someone would be proud of something like that, but that's where we are now. They're certainly the vast majority of this thread, that's for sure.
.

You know what people think, do you? Actually people on the right keep pointing out that the left won't compromise. They're correct

 

[kaz]

I do love wingers who keep an imaginary scoreboard in their heads to prop up their self esteem.


.

When has the left ever compromised?

The farm bill, prior to now. 911 legislation, immigration (Schumer gave Trump his wall for DACA...Trump changed his mind at the last minute)

You need to provide two links and you have none.

How did Democrats compromise on "the farm bill?"

When did Schummer give Trump the wall for DACA?

it was republicans that compromised.

Compromise was by both. And giving Trump his wall was absolute compromise.

You still haven't demonstrated that Schummer actually agreed to actual building of the full wall. Only a proven liar (The Washington Post) reporting on a proven liar (Chuckie Cheese Schummer) without anything specific about what was actually offered

You'd suddenly get that if we flipped parties

 

[Mac1958]

Well crap, Mac might have a point. This bickering is pretty sad. Most of these arguments have sides using their own partisan sources, and facts are skewed so much they are almost made up.

Worse, this behavior is a choice we're making. No one is making us behave this way, as much as we want to convince ourselves that's the case.

There are many posters here who are proud of the fact that their "side" will not collaborate with the other. I don't know how in the world someone would be proud of something like that, but that's where we are now. They're certainly the vast majority of this thread, that's for sure.
.

You know what people think, do you? Actually people on the right keep pointing out that the left won't compromise. They're correct

So you're NOT proud of it?

Did I get that wrong?
.

 

[kaz]

Well crap, Mac might have a point. This bickering is pretty sad. Most of these arguments have sides using their own partisan sources, and facts are skewed so much they are almost made up.

Worse, this behavior is a choice we're making. No one is making us behave this way, as much as we want to convince ourselves that's the case.

There are many posters here who are proud of the fact that their "side" will not collaborate with the other. I don't know how in the world someone would be proud of something like that, but that's where we are now. They're certainly the vast majority of this thread, that's for sure.
.

You know what people think, do you? Actually people on the right keep pointing out that the left won't compromise. They're correct

So you're NOT proud of it?

Did I get that wrong?
.

Your connotation is that I wouldn't take a good deal if it was offered. Yes, that is wrong.

The problem with the stupid Republicans is they make one deal after another where they get nothing

 

[Mac1958]

Well crap, Mac might have a point. This bickering is pretty sad. Most of these arguments have sides using their own partisan sources, and facts are skewed so much they are almost made up.

Worse, this behavior is a choice we're making. No one is making us behave this way, as much as we want to convince ourselves that's the case.

There are many posters here who are proud of the fact that their "side" will not collaborate with the other. I don't know how in the world someone would be proud of something like that, but that's where we are now. They're certainly the vast majority of this thread, that's for sure.
.

You know what people think, do you? Actually people on the right keep pointing out that the left won't compromise. They're correct

So you're NOT proud of it?

Did I get that wrong?
.

Your connotation is that I wouldn't take a good deal if it was offered. Yes, that is wrong

Great! 430+ posts into the thread, we're making progress.

Can a "good deal" include a situation in which you were willing to soften or eliminate a demand, if the return were good enough?
.

 

[kaz]

Well crap, Mac might have a point. This bickering is pretty sad. Most of these arguments have sides using their own partisan sources, and facts are skewed so much they are almost made up.

Worse, this behavior is a choice we're making. No one is making us behave this way, as much as we want to convince ourselves that's the case.

There are many posters here who are proud of the fact that their "side" will not collaborate with the other. I don't know how in the world someone would be proud of something like that, but that's where we are now. They're certainly the vast majority of this thread, that's for sure.
.

You know what people think, do you? Actually people on the right keep pointing out that the left won't compromise. They're correct

So you're NOT proud of it?

Did I get that wrong?
.

Your connotation is that I wouldn't take a good deal if it was offered. Yes, that is wrong

Great! 430+ posts into the thread, we're making progress.

Can a "good deal" include a situation in which you were willing to soften or eliminate a demand, if the return were good enough?
.

That's what a good deal means other than to Democrats. To Democrats, there is no such thing as a good deal. That they just fully get their way is their expectation. They don't compromise other than to get less of what they want so there is no way to get any real deal with them.

What Republicans do is called folding

 

[Mac1958]

Worse, this behavior is a choice we're making. No one is making us behave this way, as much as we want to convince ourselves that's the case.

There are many posters here who are proud of the fact that their "side" will not collaborate with the other. I don't know how in the world someone would be proud of something like that, but that's where we are now. They're certainly the vast majority of this thread, that's for sure.
.

You know what people think, do you? Actually people on the right keep pointing out that the left won't compromise. They're correct

So you're NOT proud of it?

Did I get that wrong?
.

Your connotation is that I wouldn't take a good deal if it was offered. Yes, that is wrong

Great! 430+ posts into the thread, we're making progress.

Can a "good deal" include a situation in which you were willing to soften or eliminate a demand, if the return were good enough?
.

That's what a good deal means other than to Democrats. To Democrats, there is no such thing as a good deal. That they just fully get their way is their expectation. They don't compromise other than to get less of what they want so there is no way to get any real deal with them.

What Republicans do is called folding

Is that a "no"?
.

 

[kaz]

You know what people think, do you? Actually people on the right keep pointing out that the left won't compromise. They're correct

So you're NOT proud of it?

Did I get that wrong?
.

Your connotation is that I wouldn't take a good deal if it was offered. Yes, that is wrong

Great! 430+ posts into the thread, we're making progress.

Can a "good deal" include a situation in which you were willing to soften or eliminate a demand, if the return were good enough?
.

That's what a good deal means other than to Democrats. To Democrats, there is no such thing as a good deal. That they just fully get their way is their expectation. They don't compromise other than to get less of what they want so there is no way to get any real deal with them.

What Republicans do is called folding

Is that a "no"?
.

The answer to that was clear in my reply

 

[2aguy]

You are wrong on all counts...

11,004 people were murdered

Guy, I'm not in the mood for your spooge...

You said that we can't meet a compromise.

I offered a perfectly good one that let's you continue to compensate for your tiny dick without guns getting into the wrong hands. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but fuck, let's give it a try, eh?

I don't get everything I want, you don't get everything you want. That's the Compromise that Stormy Mac says he so thinks we need to have today.

Come on, buddy, do it for Stormy Mac.

I think mac doesn't understand the situation....

Your compromise would have had blacks sitting at segregated lunch counters and using black only bathrooms....

 

[2aguy]

How about this, if you hate guns move the fuck out of this country. You don't "need" to live here. There is your compromise.

You talk of those other nations so highly, what's the hold up?

Guy, I offered you a really good compromise... I think you are kind of proving Stormy Mac's point.

And his point was kind of stupid.

They believe guns and those that own them are the one thing preventing the hand of an egalitarian government under their control from righting the wrongs they feel are perpetuated on them by the monied.

Um, your side nominated a fascist and shoved him down everyone's throats even though a majority voted against him.

Guns don't prevent tyranny.

Ummm, your side nominated a liar and a cheat, and tried to shove her down everyone's throat.

Worse, she was a criminal who actually did conspire with putin and other countries to get advantages from her as Secretary of State and for future benefits when she won the Presidency....... she committed at least 3 felonies alone for her illegal server as well.....

 

[2aguy]

Every other nation doesn't have 450 million guns in private hands.

The law abiding capitulating sets up their slaughter.

Again- Every other industrialized nation does it the smart way...

Here's the thing. Your fetish is already in decline. Less people hunt, less households have guns. It's really just the 3% of the population that needs to stock up on guns to compensate for their "shortcomings". The rest of the population would be perfectly fine with sensible restrictions.

Wrong... the biggest growth sectors in gun ownership are women and minorities...for self defense.... notice that they are the two groups that are most victimized by democrat men and democrat policies...

NBC Poll: Does Gun Ownership Increase Or Decrease Safety? Anti-Gun Activists Won't Like The Results.

nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that getting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases safety.

"In the poll, 58 percent agree with the statement that gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," NBC News reports. "By contrast, 38 percent say that gun ownership reduces safety by giving too many people access to firearms, increasing the chances for accidental misuse."

------

NBC notes that the overall result is a "reversal" of the findings of a 1999 survey that found that 52 percent of respondents believed gun ownership reduced safety. The more positive perspective on gun ownership is partly reflected in gun ownership trends: "47 percent of American adults say they have a firearm in the household, which is up from 44 percent in 1999."