Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

[joecct]

Carry on.

Scooby said:

BS. He compromised on the Health Care bill by a huge magnitude. He compromised on the debt ceiling. He compromised on the stimulus. He compromised on everything. Bone Man and Mitch never compromised on anything.

[Foxton]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Carry on.

Scooby said:

Scooby just needs to learn that compromise means coming over and giving republicans everything they want.



Hey, who did Romney endorse again?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Scooby just needs to learn that compromise means coming over and giving republicans everything they want.

Hey, who did Romney endorse again?

I do need to learn that. He endorsed that fine young man in the video. The one that knows that God wants rape.

[walrus]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

I do need to learn that. He endorsed that fine young man in the video. The one that knows that God wants rape.

You need to learn the difference between compromise and bought and paid for

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Compromise is only feasible when both parties have a shared over-riding objective.

Imagine this scenario:

A person comes up to you on the street, and s/he says "Give me all your money.!"

You reply, "No."

"well, give me half your money then!"
-- No

"Give me one-fourth of your money!"
-- No

"Give me one-tenth of your money!"
-- No

Now, one possible "point" of this parable might be: "are you being unreasonable by failing to compromise in the above dialog?


At the same time, given my opening sentence, we might continue the dialog a bit further, or branch it into different directions:

"Give me one-twentieth of your money!"
-- Hmm...Unlikely, although remotely possible if you can give me a real good reason and excellent collateral in case you are trying to scam me, I can't afford to part with it forever, you know, but perhaps I could lend it to you for awhile if you really need it and fully intend in good faith to pay it back later

"Hmm....maybe another time. Give me one-hundredth of your money."
-- Hmm...I'm going to be noncommittal until you tell me (a) why you want it and (b) why you came up to a stranger on the street to ask.


We've introduced the possibility of a shared greater goal beyond the money itself, focused intead on how the money would be used.





As I noted earlier, you can have been in favor of a stimulus while disliking the way this particular stimulus was implemented; you can be in favor of broad-based, comprehensive health care delivery market reformation while also disliking certain specific provisions of PPACA in particular, or disliking very much the obvious vote-buying provisions they included in the push to get the legislation passed ("Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" were pretty mainstream terms in the coverage of the debate, if only to report on what others were saying ("The New York Times reported today that someone else called this provision the Louisiana Purchase because....")

I find it remarkable that some people seem unable to make the distinction between being sympathetic to Obama's expressed aims while also lamenting his failed methods. It's almost like talking to a teen-ager: "You did something wrong." "Well, I meant well, it wasn't my fault it didn't turn out right". That is so immature. It is disempowering, and very damaging to morale ("gee if he can't fix it,then what hope do we have?") If you cannot admist a mistake you cannot learn, you cannot grow, you cannot fix things that persistently keep going wrong somehow, no matter how many times you keep doing the same thing!

I don't think that makes me "partisan" I think it merely makes me a demanding employer conducting a job interview. If you had to hire someone to be President, knowing that you personally would be responsible for the outcome if you made the wrong choice: based purely on their record of adminstrative achievement and demonstrated leadership acumen, who would you choose if limited solely to those criteria? The man who built a successful business, helped start several other successful companies that now employ tens of thousands of people, turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics, turned a 3 billion dollar budget deficit into a 2 billion surplus rainy day fund as Governor, who never drinks to excess and never did drugs, or the guy who keeps saying it was someone else's fault?

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Compromise is only feasible when both parties have a shared over-riding objective.

Imagine this scenario:

A person comes up to you on the street, and s/he says "Give me all your money.!"

You reply, "No."

"well, give me half your money then!"
-- No

"Give me one-fourth of your money!"
-- No

"Give me one-tenth of your money!"
-- No

Now, one possible "point" of this parable might be: "are you being unreasonable by failing to compromise in the above dialog?


At the same time, given my opening sentence, we might continue the dialog a bit further, or branch it into different directions:

"Give me one-twentieth of your money!"
-- Hmm...Unlikely, although remotely possible if you can give me a real good reason and excellent collateral in case you are trying to scam me, I can't afford to part with it forever, you know, but perhaps I could lend it to you for awhile if you really need it and fully intend in good faith to pay it back later

"Hmm....maybe another time. Give me one-hundredth of your money."
-- Hmm...I'm going to be noncommittal until you tell me (a) why you want it and (b) why you came up to a stranger on the street to ask.


We've introduced the possibility of a shared greater goal beyond the money itself, focused intead on how the money would be used.





As I noted earlier, you can have been in favor of a stimulus while disliking the way this particular stimulus was implemented; you can be in favor of broad-based, comprehensive health care delivery market reformation while also disliking certain specific provisions of PPACA in particular, or disliking very much the obvious vote-buying provisions they included in the push to get the legislation passed ("Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" were pretty mainstream terms in the coverage of the debate, if only to report on what others were saying ("The New York Times reported today that someone else called this provision the Louisiana Purchase because....")

I find it remarkable that some people seem unable to make the distinction between being sympathetic to Obama's expressed aims while also lamenting his failed methods. It's almost like talking to a teen-ager: "You did something wrong." "Well, I meant well, it wasn't my fault it didn't turn out right". That is so immature. It is disempowering, and very damaging to morale ("gee if he can't fix it,then what hope do we have?") If you cannot admist a mistake you cannot learn, you cannot grow, you cannot fix things that persistently keep going wrong somehow, no matter how many times you keep doing the same thing!

I don't think that makes me "partisan" I think it merely makes me a demanding employer conducting a job interview. If you had to hire someone to be President, knowing that you personally would be responsible for the outcome if you made the wrong choice: based purely on their record of adminstrative achievement and demonstrated leadership acumen, who would you choose if limited solely to those criteria? The man who built a successful business, helped start several other successful companies that now employ tens of thousands of people, turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics, turned a 3 billion dollar budget deficit into a 2 billion surplus rainy day fund as Governor, who never drinks to excess and never did drugs, or the guy who keeps saying it was someone else's fault?

This should really be over in the other thread.

What's hilarious is that you don't realize how hyper-partisan you are. If I thought Romney could operate a computer on his own, I would think that you are actually the Governor.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

This should really be over in the other thread.

What's hilarious is that you don't realize how hyper-partisan you are. .

No doubt.

He keeps trying to position himself as open minded and independent.

Everything he posts is right leaning.

[unofan]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Compromise is only feasible when both parties have a shared over-riding objective.

Imagine this scenario:

A person comes up to you on the street, and s/he says "Give me all your money.!"

You reply, "No."

"well, give me half your money then!"
-- No

"Give me one-fourth of your money!"
-- No

"Give me one-tenth of your money!"
-- No

Wow, what a "liberal" you are, comparing taxes to theft like every other GOP shill out there...

Good lord, just admit it already.

Oh, and don't think I'm letting you get away with this one from thelast thread.

How conveniently we forget! Obama and Boehner did reach a compromise, $2 trillion in spending "cuts" and $900 million in new revenue. Then, at the last minute, Obama asked for an additional $400 million in revenue and it was only then that the talks collapsed. He had the agreement he said he wanted, and then he torpedoed it.

Talk about complete bullshiat. Obama gave the GOP 98% of what they wanted, and Boehner was on board. McConnell threw a tizzy because he wasn't invited to the golf course and Grover started throwing his pledge around. Boehner got scared that he'd lose his speakership, and called the whole thing off.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Subscribed because your state's members of Congress blow.

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

comparing taxes to theft

Again, you completely miss the point, and you even get a two-fer, since you missed the point in two different ways!

First of all, there is no comparison between taxation and theft. A person merely asked for your money: there was no threat of compulsion nor any demand at all; it was merely a request, nothing compulsory or mandatory. So your "interpretation" completely misses the mark on that score.

Second, and more important, the core element of the analogy was not about the request for funds, it was about how the funds would be used!


As FDR said (to paraphrase): "Taxes are merely the dues one pays to live in a civilized society."

People generally don't mind taxes, as long as they get something reasonable in return.




To go back to my analogy:

"Give me some of your money."
-- what for?

"I want to erect a building with my name on it; and there are 434 others here who want to do the same thing."
-- is there any particular need for all those buildings?

"No, not really; but we have to demonstrate to our constituents that we are bringing federal money back into our district."
-- what does that have to do with the public good?

"Not much, but it has a lot to do with my desire to get re-elected multiple times."
-- I'd really rather not. When you do come up with some essential service that cannot be provided any other way, get back to me and we'll talk again.



It is not about "taxes" it is about value (or lack thereof!) received in return. It is not about one political party or the other as they are both equally complicit in squandering and wasting our money. It is about setting up duplicate bureacracies where one already exists yet another one is layered on top anyway (47 different federal jobs programs? really??)

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Subscribed because your state's members of Congress blow.

or to recall a classic joke about college football:

"Why is Kansas so windy?"
-- because Nebraska sucks and Oklahoma blows!

[Foxton]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Wow, what a "liberal" you are, comparing taxes to theft like every other GOP shill out there...

Good lord, just admit it already.

Oh, and don't think I'm letting you get away with this one from thelast thread.


Talk about complete bullshiat. Obama gave the GOP 98% of what they wanted, and Boehner was on board. McConnell threw a tizzy because he wasn't invited to the golf course and Grover started throwing his pledge around. Boehner got scared that he'd lose his speakership, and called the whole thing off.

I think he's the one poster I put on ignore that I'm no longer going to pop open the post to see what was said. You have to slog through what he must think is an eloquent and well put together essay just to get to bad talking points. At least Old POS, Bob, huskyfan, flagdude, and the like can get theirs across without having to satisfy some length requirement.

[unofan]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

First of all, there is no comparison between taxation and theft.

Right, because using the analogy of someone approaching you randomly on the street demanding your money (with exclamation points) and without any other explanation doesn't look at all like a comparison to a mugger.

Nice try at the backtracking after being called out, but you're laying it on just a little too thickly.

[joecct]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Right, because using the analogy of someone approaching you randomly on the street demanding your money (with exclamation points) and without any other explanation doesn't look at all like a comparison to a mugger.

Nice try at the backtracking after being called out, but you're laying it on just a little too thickly.

Agree (I think). When you get mugged you scream for the police. When you get taxed, you just scream. And in Maryland, no one can hear you scream.....

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Right, because using the analogy of someone approaching you randomly on the street demanding your money (with exclamation points) and without any other explanation doesn't look at all like a comparison to a mugger.

I'm tempted to suggest that your post reveals more about you than anything else, but that probably would just be a waste of time.

I do have to give you credit for a clever rhetorical trick. I notice you never respond to the substance of a post with which you disagree. Rather, you apply a derogatory label, and then dismiss what you've just labeled it as merely being, well, whatever you just labeled it!

That's a neat way never actually to address an issue. No way you can lose that way!