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

[Mac1958]

It certainly looks like the clear majority here has no interest in either collaboration or innovation.

I guess I'm not surprised.

 

[BluesLegend]

^^^ a filthy lie. You see now why there can be no compromise with liberals they are despicable liars.

You posted a cogent response which pointed out an ignorance of history by the OP....and his response was to mock it and dismiss it instead of fleshing out the disagreements therein.

And yet, he wants to complain that folks dont flesh out their differences like adults.

See through Mac does it again.

You got it wrong. The only explanation is that he struck a nerve!!!

Yep.

If I have to defend my advocacy of collaboration and innovation, we're even worse off than I thought.

But that's okay. I'm sure you and your tribe have all the answers, and once you "beat" the other "side", we'll be fine.

Cool! Looking forward to it! Thanks!
.

You claimed the founders advocated collaboration and tolerance when in fact they tarred and feathered people who disagreed with them, your OP was obliterated.

No, I claimed that I advocate for collaboration and tolerance.

Your attempt to advocate for the opposite is obliterated.
.

No you said this, "I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying." and posted a picture of the founders.

 

[Mac1958]

You posted a cogent response which pointed out an ignorance of history by the OP....and his response was to mock it and dismiss it instead of fleshing out the disagreements therein.

And yet, he wants to complain that folks dont flesh out their differences like adults.

See through Mac does it again.

You got it wrong. The only explanation is that he struck a nerve!!!

Yep.

If I have to defend my advocacy of collaboration and innovation, we're even worse off than I thought.

But that's okay. I'm sure you and your tribe have all the answers, and once you "beat" the other "side", we'll be fine.

Cool! Looking forward to it! Thanks!
.

You claimed the founders advocated collaboration and tolerance when in fact they tarred and feathered people who disagreed with them, your OP was obliterated.

No, I claimed that I advocate for collaboration and tolerance.

Your attempt to advocate for the opposite is obliterated.
.

No you said this, "I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying." and posted a picture of the founders.

Correct. As opposed to what you claimed I said.

Thanks.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

You got it wrong. The only explanation is that he struck a nerve!!!

Yep.

If I have to defend my advocacy of collaboration and innovation, we're even worse off than I thought.

But that's okay. I'm sure you and your tribe have all the answers, and once you "beat" the other "side", we'll be fine.

Cool! Looking forward to it! Thanks!
.

You claimed the founders advocated collaboration and tolerance when in fact they tarred and feathered people who disagreed with them, your OP was obliterated.

No, I claimed that I advocate for collaboration and tolerance.

Your attempt to advocate for the opposite is obliterated.
.

No you said this, "I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying." and posted a picture of the founders.

Correct. As opposed to what you claimed I said.

Thanks.
.

The vast majority of forum posters in your thread agree with me, deal with it.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep.

If I have to defend my advocacy of collaboration and innovation, we're even worse off than I thought.

But that's okay. I'm sure you and your tribe have all the answers, and once you "beat" the other "side", we'll be fine.

Cool! Looking forward to it! Thanks!
.

You claimed the founders advocated collaboration and tolerance when in fact they tarred and feathered people who disagreed with them, your OP was obliterated.

No, I claimed that I advocate for collaboration and tolerance.

Your attempt to advocate for the opposite is obliterated.
.

No you said this, "I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying." and posted a picture of the founders.

Correct. As opposed to what you claimed I said.

Thanks.
.

The vast majority of forum posters in your thread agree with me, deal with it.

Yes, as I clearly pointed out in Post 101.

I'm definitely getting my butt kicked by people who are against collaboration and innovation here.

Stipulated.

I don't know why you would be proud of such a stance, but congrats!
.

 

[candycorn]

^^^ a filthy lie. You see now why there can be no compromise with liberals they are despicable liars.

Sorry, guy... your boy trump is throwing kids into concentration camps.. Ignoring demands by the judiciary to reunite families...

The thing is, I think that where Stormy Mac almost has a point is that a lot of people on the right KNOW this is wrong, but aren't saying anything.

Correct

 

[candycorn]

It would be refreshing if the news media tried to collaborate and cooperate instead of calling the President "insane" and constantly sniping at him. It would be refreshing if the media didn't constantly try to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory in the administration. Democrats have had the advantage of cooperation in the media since freaking FDR commandeered the press during WW2 and ordered them to say only good things about the administration even when he incarcerated American citizens without due process. Imagine if President Trump was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office and decided to bomb Europe. The media would go absolutely wild but they supported Clinton's insanity of killing civilians (about 5,000?) to force the surrender of one man who mysteriously died in custody. Barney Frank was the chair of the House Banking Committee which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae which collapsed on his watch bringing down the economy just in time for the presidential election. Nobody in the media ever asked him what the hell he was doing. A democrat activist allegedly met with the democrat leadership before opening fire on a republican baseball team and democrats refused to cooperate. The media buried the story before the assassin was buried. Amazingly the majority of the media spends time crunching numbers to try to undermine everything the president says instead of focusing on issues.

They needn’t crunch numbers, the lies are obvious. Much like yours.

 

[G.T.]

You claimed the founders advocated collaboration and tolerance when in fact they tarred and feathered people who disagreed with them, your OP was obliterated.

No, I claimed that I advocate for collaboration and tolerance.

Your attempt to advocate for the opposite is obliterated.
.

No you said this, "I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying." and posted a picture of the founders.

Correct. As opposed to what you claimed I said.

Thanks.
.

The vast majority of forum posters in your thread agree with me, deal with it.

Yes, as I clearly pointed out in Post 101.

I'm definitely getting my butt kicked by people who are against collaboration and innovation here.

Stipulated.

I don't know why you would be proud of such a stance, but congrats!
.

no, i think its a comprehension issue on your part.

 

[MACAULAY]

It certainly looks like the clear majority here has no interest in either collaboration or innovation.

I guess I'm not surprised.

_______

How about a start on agreeing to vigorously enforce the Immigration Laws our Congress previously passed...considering we are being invaded. Wouldn't that be collaboration? But No. the fucking Obama-Judges slap injunctions on that and the Bolsheviks scream racism.

Compromise on starting to enforce our current Laws!

Sounds simple, but Democrats say HELL NO.

 

[Mac1958]

It certainly looks like the clear majority here has no interest in either collaboration or innovation.

I guess I'm not surprised.

_______

How about a start on agreeing to vigorously enforce the Immigration Laws our Congress previously passed...considering we are being invaded. Wouldn't that be collaboration? But No. the fucking Obama-Judges slap injunctions on that and the Bolsheviks scream racism.

Compromise on starting to enforce our current Laws!

Sounds simple, but Democrats say HELL NO.

Seems like a fair start, but getting the two sides in Congress to even say "hello" might be asking for too much at this moment.
.

 

[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

 

[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? Do I really need to say this stuff?
.

 

[kaz]

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.

The minimum wage for example hurts poor people because companies don't overpay anyone. Yet leftists demand it.

Illegal immigration is keeping poor and particularly black unemployment high and wages low, yet the left demands we keep our borders open.

The left's policies consistently harm the people they claim to want to help. Yet they won't compromise.

I want to reduce our overseas military footprint and get out of all these wars. But the Democrats only support that when they are not in power.

So, be specific where we could compromise but I won't

 

[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.
.

 

[bripat9643]

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

They were all on the same side. Keep in mind that at the time a large portion of the population was on the British side. Today leftwingers are not on the side of America.

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

 

[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 "choose" to hate them the way I would choose a paint color. I hate people who are trying to do me harm. That's just a fundamental law of animal behavior.

 

[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.
.

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.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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 "choose" to hate them the way I would choose a paint color. I hate people who are trying to do me harm. That's just a fundamental law of animal behavior.

I'd disagree. Hate is something that we learn. We can choose not to give in to emotion. If a person can't, that's on that person.
.

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.

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.