BIG DEAL!
IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR GOVERNMENT BELIEVES "COMPROMISE" OF PRINCIPLES IS A GOOD THING.
IDIOTS.
Monday, August 1, 2011
SO WE HAVE A DEAL!
BIG DEAL!
IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR GOVERNMENT BELIEVES "COMPROMISE" OF PRINCIPLES IS A GOOD THING.
IDIOTS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Compromise is the only way to govern responsibly.
The only governments that don't compromise are dictatorships.
Why is this such a difficult concept for you to comprehend?
If us republicans don't grow a set, Obama will easily win reelection.
See ya all in the 2012 primaries.
XO: Let's prentend that you and I represent each side of Congress.
On what would you require me to "compromise," and on what would you allow me to require you to "compromise?"
No, the way government should work is that each stands on whatever his costituents' principles are and let the vote decide.
That's the way it should work.
In addition, there should be no unrelated amendments allowed on a bill, because that invites corruption, an invite that is almost always accepted.
Robert: Let's hope we are poised for growth.
Joe - Compromise is a tricky word.
For instance I don't like to 'compromise' myself. I see this as a negative thing.
But in the case of the debt ceiling - where there are two opposing forces and something has to be done - compromise is a way of taking care of a dangerous stalemate, that would hurt the American people.
~~~
I agree with you, Joe, about not allowing an unrelated ammendment on a bill. That is foolishness - something that should have never been allowed to come into existence.
Joe - That's just silly. Our Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, all of the Amendments and every piece of legislation ever passed were all compromises. That's how you get things done.
oh yes and we saw so much compromise before 2010....not.
Sure, why NOT raise your credit card limit when you're UP TO YOUR NECK IN DEBT! Good idea, right?
GAD
Compromise is giving up something you believe to be right, to accept something you believe to be wrong.
What would our history be if "Radical Republicans" had compromised with moderates and democrats on slavery?
No doubt, Xavier would be all for it. Instead of going to work, his Obama-slave would earn the money and all he'd have to do is kick back and watch sports, while his Michelle-slave fetched his beer.
And, where was all this whining about compromise when democrats had a super-majority in Congress? Most of the time, they locked Republicans out, as they planned ways, behind closed doors, to sabotage the country.
The only standards liberals have are double-standards.
I admit, I don't understand the whole argument. All sides have their own way to spin the facts. I tend to believe the Conservative side is closer to correct, but I don't trust even the Republicans to do the right thing.
I don't know whether this is a good deal or not, but the way the democrats are whining, I think it must have some good points.
XO: That's just silly. You didn't believe in compromise when Democrats held the Senate, the House and the presidency.
Oh, yo DID.
Well tell me, O Sage. On what did you compromise?
The democrats idea of compromise is the Republicans going along with everything they say.
"Let's begin by taking note of three facts:
(1) Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: "The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that" "
---------------
Check out Glen Greenwald's column in Salon today.
Ducky: I read it, including its links to "facts."
It is a bunch of philosophical pablum that does not rise to the level of pig slop.
Joe - You have a way with words
that often takes you to the genius
level of intelligence. (':
Detailed and specific, Joe. That's the kind of profound analysis your fans expect.
we are giving away our entire nation Z..sickening to be honest with ya..
sorry Joe..I meant JOE..lol love the image too!
Whew, rough day at the track, Joe. You catch those numbers.
Reaction to a variety of really bad news like consumer spending, housing and industrial output.
Great time to cut spending, right? Cut off your nose to spite your face.
You can really make this freaking magic by combining it with a balanced budget amendment. Should put you in the poor house in no time.
How does balancing the budget put anyone in the poor house?? My budget is balanced now and I don't fear bill collectors, I'm not worried about interest rates or where I'm getting my next meal -- or Corvette. That wasn't true when my ex left me with 100,000 of debt.
If liberals had the moral courage to fend for themselves and the manliness to go through life without a federal nanny, this country would be far better. I know that, because that's how it was when I was a kid.
Let's see if we can explain this for the Ranger.
1. Demand is weak. Unemployment is high.
2. Cutting government spending reduces demand and increases unemployment.
3. Economy goes further into the dumper.
Corvette? If I'm going to spend that kind of money on a depreciating asset I'd pick up an Aston-Martin.
Ducky types, "1. Demand is weak. Unemployment is high.
2. Cutting government spending reduces demand and increases unemployment.
3. Economy goes further into the dumper."
I'm no expert on economics, as I've often said, but it seems to me Ducky left out a step or two.
For example, perhaps Ducky can fully explain how cutting government spending reduces demand and increases unemployment.
Because on the surface, that statement appears completely illogical.
What "demand" are you talking about, Ducky? And who's doing the demanding?
MARK: Ducky has trouble counting his own pennies, let alone yours and mine.
Post a Comment