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

[2aguy]

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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

 

[2aguy]

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

Exactly...... the demand is, give us what we want now otherwise we will eventually take it all because you are stubborn.....then, they come back for the next bit of the 2nd Amendment and say, give us this next little bit now, or we will take it all because you won't compromise on this little bit.....and then they come back again...

And mac, supports their proposition that the problem isn't a totalitarian left that has no stopping point, but that both sides are bad.....

 

[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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

 

[2aguy]

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?
.

Here is my compromise on my issue...gun control.

I will take no universal background checks, no gun registration, no assualt weapon ban, which is unConstitutional anyway, no magazine limits which are also a stupid thing,

And I will give a 30 year sentence when a gun is used for a real crime, rape, robbery or murder.

I will give a 30 year sentence in addition to the gun sentence if a criminal uses a magazine in a gun to commit a rape, robbery or murder....

There..... my give will actually reduce gun crime and gun murder.... it also has the added advantage of not impacting law abiding gun owners in anyway and does not violate the Constitution......

 

[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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

That's kind of a misnomer though. It's not "speech" that are limited with libel and slander. What is illegal is the harm you do. Speech is just the vehicle. Driving a car into someone is illegal. The car is not illegal

 

[2aguy]

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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

Sorry..... the items I mentioned are not reasonable and they do nothing to prevent crime or mass shootings... they are simply ways for those who hate guns to punish people who own guns.....

that is all they are....

Your 1st Amendment example is perfect for the gun debate.... your limitations happen when the 1st Amendment is used to violate the Rights of other people and up to that point you can do and say anything you want...

We do not require a background check to buy electronic devices to ensure computer criminals aren't buying them, we do not require you to get a license to buy an electronic device or to write a book or publish a book...you are not limited to 100 pages for a book or 1000 words for a news article.....

you are punished if you use the 1st Amendment to violate the Rights of others....

With the 2nd Amendment you want to violate the Rights of law abiding citizens who have committed no crime who have violated no one elses Rights..... simply to make people who have a phobia about guns happy.

For the 2nd Amendment we already have what you say you want..... if you use a gun to violate the Rights of another human, you are arrested......just like yelling fire in a crowded theater, you aren't arrested till you cross that line....

So nothing the anti gunners want is Constitutional or worth compromising with...

 

[Norman]

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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

That's kind of a misnomer though. It's not "speech" that are limited with libel and slander. What is illegal is the harm you do. Speech is just the vehicle. Driving a car into someone is illegal. The car is not illegal

Didn't you hear, they don't like gun nuts! Therefore it's entirely reasonable to take their guns...

Of course, as I suspected we aren't negotiating for a deal, but a "compromise", where one side gets what it wants and the other nothing what it wants. Why the first side should agree to such compromise has not been explained.

 

[2aguy]

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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

That's kind of a misnomer though. It's not "speech" that are limited with libel and slander. What is illegal is the harm you do. Speech is just the vehicle. Driving a car into someone is illegal. The car is not illegal

Exactly.... and this is what Mac is missing on guns and the other issues.... the left want to restrict Rights without any justification other than they don't like how you exercise that Right......and there is no compromising with that...

 

[2aguy]

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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

That's kind of a misnomer though. It's not "speech" that are limited with libel and slander. What is illegal is the harm you do. Speech is just the vehicle. Driving a car into someone is illegal. The car is not illegal

Mac's thought would be more accurate if he said that it would be okay to require a background check to buy a computer or electronic devise as a reasonable measure to make sure computer criminals can't get them.... or requiring anyone writing anything get a license from the government to make sure they won't commit libel and slander...and if they don't get the license they can't write anything for the public.....

Also, Mac would want the pages of books limited, the number of words to a magazine or news article limited because you don't need that many pages or words to get your point across...after all, if you can't say what needs to be said in 100 pages, you shouldn't be writing anything....

 

[Mac1958]

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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

That's kind of a misnomer though. It's not "speech" that are limited with libel and slander. What is illegal is the harm you do. Speech is just the vehicle. Driving a car into someone is illegal. The car is not illegal

Exactly.... and this is what Mac is missing on guns and the other issues.... the left want to restrict Rights without any justification other than they don't like how you exercise that Right......and there is no compromising with that...

I agree completely that the illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left (as compared to actual liberals) are prepared to impose more and more restrictions on rights, and I often wonder how far they would go if given enough latitude.

So the question is how to deal with that. Clearly the choice has largely been made to take an "all or nothing" approach, not give an inch, attack, attack, attack.

Okay, that's not up to me. If it were up to me, I wouldn't want to run that big a risk of losing everything. I'd go for a more incremental approach, the one the Regressive Left has used so successfully with PC and Identity Politics. Get a smaller win, prove you earned it, get another win, etc.

I'm patient, and I still think there's time to marginalize the Regressive Left. But the clock is ticking, and all-or-nothing ain't worth the risk.
.

 

[2aguy]

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?
.

What part of the Right to Keep and bear arms can we give up that isn't a dumb idea? They want universal background checks, licensing gun owners, registering guns, assault weapon bans, magazine limits...

Not one of those ideas impacts criminals or mass shooters, not one of those things would lower the gun murder rate...... the only thing each of those things does is slowly constrict a Right that law abiding citizens do not abuse..... for no other reason than the left wing, anti gunners don't like guns. You don't give up a Right just because one side doesn't like it.....

Where do you compromise on any of those items when the entire goal is simply to make it harder for people who do not abuse guns to have access to guns?

Again...why weren't blacks happy to eat in places other than at the lunch counter....couldn't they simply compromise with that? Why couldn't blacks simply pay a small tax to vote and pass a simple literacy test to vote...why didn't they simply compromise on the amount to be paid and the number of questions they had to answer? Why couldn't blacks have simply not sat in the front half of the bus, and make that the compromise instead of insisting on sitting wherever they wanted?

Why wouldn't blacks compromise on those issues like you want us to do now with our Right to keep and bear arms?

We have a lot of rights, and sometimes, for the overall good, we attach requirements and laws to them.

Even my beloved First Amendment rights include protections for people against libel and slander, and public safety issues such as screaming HIJACK in an airport or FIRE in a crowded theater. My impulse is to fight those, no one here is a bigger advocate for freedom of expression than I am, but I recognize that careful exceptions are made as long as the spirit of the right remains.

So yes, while I agree with the right to own a gun, I don't think that reasonable restrictions and requirements placed on ownership are asking too much.
.

That's kind of a misnomer though. It's not "speech" that are limited with libel and slander. What is illegal is the harm you do. Speech is just the vehicle. Driving a car into someone is illegal. The car is not illegal

Exactly.... and this is what Mac is missing on guns and the other issues.... the left want to restrict Rights without any justification other than they don't like how you exercise that Right......and there is no compromising with that...

I agree completely that the illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left (as compared to actual liberals) are prepared to impose more and more restrictions on rights, and I often wonder how far they would go if given enough latitude.

So the question is how to deal with that. Clearly the choice has largely been made to take an "all or nothing" approach, not give an inch, attack, attack, attack.

Okay, that's not up to me. If it were up to me, I wouldn't want to run that big a risk of losing everything. I'd go for a more incremental approach, the one the Regressive Left has used so successfully with PC and Identity Politics. Get a smaller win, prove you earned it, get another win, etc.

I'm patient, and I still think there's time to marginalize the Regressive Left. But the clock is ticking, and all-or-nothing ain't worth the risk.
.

We go on the offense..... more outreach to women, LGBTQ, and minorities to own and carry guns...... and we start pushing for Constitutional carry in every state, Concealed carry reciprocity, ending stupid magazine bans......arming school staff..........you force them to make arguments against these things...and show how stupid and wrong they are on them..... Europe is falling apart, so they won't have that crutch anymore....

 

[BluesLegend]

... with the wingers. Irrelevant. You're the problem.
A badge of honor. I do love it when you folks illustrate my point for me.

I won, you lost, lets move on.

You always say that when you lose

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

"I won, you lost, nannie nannie boo boo"


.

Its not my fault you started a retarded thread and several people had to correct you on US history.

It sure did strike a nerve and trigger you partisans, and had you flinging personal insults and name-calling right out of the gate.

But you won! You won! You're so clever! Good for you!


.

When you post something that is so blatantly inaccurate historically, falsely claiming the founders were spineless centrists like yourself is it really that surprising that people on both sides of the isle corrected you? Go stand on a shoe box in a town square see if you can get anyone to listen to you I'm done.

 

[Mac1958]

When you post something that is so blatantly inaccurate historically, falsely claiming the founders were spineless centrists like yourself is it really that surprising that people on both sides of the isle corrected you?

Wow, so in your mind, I said the Founding Fathers were centrists.

Holy crap, thanks for saying that. This is what hardcore partisan ideology does to perceptions and thought processes. I believe that you believe that. In reality, of course, I said or inferred no such thing.

This place remains an absolutely fascinating psychological/sociological/anthropological study.

Wow. A cautionary tale.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

When you post something that is so blatantly inaccurate historically, falsely claiming the founders were spineless centrists like yourself is it really that surprising that people on both sides of the isle corrected you?

Wow, so in your mind, I said the Founding Fathers were centrists.

Holy crap, thanks for saying that. This is what hardcore partisan ideology does to perceptions and thought processes. I believe that you believe that. In reality, of course, I said or inferred no such thing.

This place remains an absolutely fascinating psychological/sociological/anthropological study.

Wow. A cautionary tale.
.

Let me compromise by placing you on ignore, later.

 

[Mac1958]

The zealots sure don't like that mirror.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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?

Yup. What is there to compromise on with the left? Their party has been hijacked by radical loons.

Mac talks a good game about being against the Regressives in charge of his party.

BUt when it was time to be counted, he pulled the lever for the Queen of Regressives, Hillary Clinton.


Until people like Mac, are willing to put country over party, compromise is a fools game.



IF mac had been able to vote for Trump, I would be much more willing to listen to talk of compromise.

How ironic. Your only talk of 'compromise' is how it best suits your party first. If only people just voted for 'your' crook, then you might be open to compromise. Fuck that. You pervert the term of 'compromise' when you clearly state there is no compromise to begin with. Both extremes made their own beds. Time to pay the piper. Double down. Don't be wimps.

I'd rather see the extremists off each other on live TV. Then, the rest of us will be done with them for good and we can purge this shitty chapter of current society and move on to something more... productive? Who's with me?

 

[Pogo]

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

Those "Liberal traitors" are actually pictured in the OP. Here they are again:

​

How's that "defeat" coming along then?

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Those "Liberal traitors" are actually pictured in the OP. Here they are again:

​

How's that "defeat" coming along then?

the old liberals founded the country myth re-surfaces.

 

[Pogo]

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

Those "Liberal traitors" are actually pictured in the OP. Here they are again:

​

How's that "defeat" coming along then?

the old liberals founded the country myth re-surfaces.

It ain't no "myth"; it's recorded history.

Take it, Wiki:

>> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Westernphilosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]

Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe and South America, whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States.[15] <<​

But thanks for demonstrating what the OP was talking about.

 

[2aguy]

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

Those "Liberal traitors" are actually pictured in the OP. Here they are again:

​

How's that "defeat" coming along then?

the old liberals founded the country myth re-surfaces.

It ain't no "myth"; it's recorded history.

Take it, Wiki:

>> Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Westernphilosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]

Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe and South America, whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States.[15] <<​

But thanks for demonstrating what the OP was talking about.

Today's liberals have nothing in common with the Classical Liberalism of the Founders.... the Founders were against concentrated government power while todays "Liberals" want all power concentrated at the federal level.