Compromise

[Ishmael]

Short answer, that government is there to help people.

And unless you were in the room with the founders and signing the constitution yourself, I could give a fuck what you think you think about what the meaning is SUPPOSED to be. The COURTS have validated much of the federal government's positions on involvement and considering those are constitutional lawyers who deal with it daily and over a period of hundreds of years I'm going to take their stance much more seriously.

By the way Madison and Jefferson have been dead for hundreds of years and this is a country with very different situations than in their time. While it might be interesting to think of what they might have thought of the US today, they aren't here so trying to compare then to now is pretty narrow minded. Does that mean there isn't something we can learn from those perspectives of course not, but to try and take them as the end all be all argument in this situation is again very narrow minded.

And how is this accomplished?

Ishmael

 

[oxphocker]

Do I really need to provide examples for that one?
Seriously, someone who is trying to quote Madison and Jefferson can't think up some of the examples I might come up with? I'm not going to argue within your narrative because it's dumb and requires examples that if I were to ask my 7th graders, "how does government help people out" could easily come up with several examples.

You know I see other threads where people seem to think you're this big boogeyman that will beat down anyone with a different opinion...so far I've only seen shallow rhetoric and lame insults. Why don't you try something better than I can actually respond to?

 

[Disgustipated]

Do I really need to provide examples for that one?
Seriously, someone who is trying to quote Madison and Jefferson can't think up some of the examples I might come up with? I'm not going to argue within your narrative because it's dumb and requires examples that if I were to ask my 7th graders, "how does government help people out" could easily come up with several examples.

You know I see other threads where people seem to think you're this big boogeyman that will beat down anyone with a different opinion...so far I've only seen shallow rhetoric and lame insults. Why don't you try something better than I can actually respond to?

You should post more, but less often.

 

[Liar]

Really?

So what does Madison have to say about the commerce clause? And what does Jefferson have to say about the welfare clause?

You see, moron, I've gone through this, on this board, years ago. It's all here, if you care to look it up, but you're a moron and you won't. Such is the nature of morons. I even traced the history of the genesis of the constitution itself back to the founding philosophy. Even made sure my children, VaticanAssassin being one, read those thoughts.

So, moron, what is the root of your particular thoughts regarding the relationship of man to his/her government?

Ishmael

Well, fact of the matter is, there are a shitton of federal laws. At the very least you'd need a congress in da house for a very long time to start scaling them back. I imagine that is not a one-penstroke operation.

 

[Ishmael]

Do I really need to provide examples for that one?
Seriously, someone who is trying to quote Madison and Jefferson can't think up some of the examples I might come up with? I'm not going to argue within your narrative because it's dumb and requires examples that if I were to ask my 7th graders, "how does government help people out" could easily come up with several examples.

You know I see other threads where people seem to think you're this big boogeyman that will beat down anyone with a different opinion...so far I've only seen shallow rhetoric and lame insults. Why don't you try something better than I can actually respond to?

Of course you do if you want to have an intelligent discussion. On the other hand if you believe that all of your thoughts are God given revelations then you can continue on just as you have with all of your previous posts.

How can you have seen "Shallow rhetoric" in my posts? It's obvious to me that you, like so many others that are incapable of engaging, that you never read my posts. And like so many others you don't even bother to address the subject, merely engage in ad hominen attacks, no matter how obliquely.

So Sparky, I laid out a question and you dodged. Answer the question. Declare yourself or forever be a waffling suck-up.

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

so what would that say about you? Each time we keep sparring in other threads, I keep making better points and I do it without turning to lame insults in order to make that point. You're a coward and a small mind that can't come up with better. Go away.

Are you friggin' kidding?!?

This ain't no fakebook, homey...

...this is the big league: there ain't no unfriending here.

So, just consider yourself friended, GBstyle...

...at least, that is, until you return to the playgrounds you came from.

 

[bra_man69]

Are you friggin' kidding?!?

This ain't no fakebook, homey...

...this is the big league: there ain't no unfriending here.

So, just consider yourself friended, GBstyle...

...at least, that is, until you return to the playgrounds you came from.

He's rob's brother

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

After reviewing the various definitions of COMPROMISE it seems to me we're talking about CONTRACT, which is the historic meaning of compromise: to bind by bargain or agreement. So there's nothing inherently wrong with contract or compromise, the fly in the soup are the conditions that make the compromise or contract, that is, the specifications and scope of work.

Compromise isnt an agreement to build half a bridge across a river, tho such deeds are done all the time by government.

 

[Sean]

if you believe that all of your thoughts are God given revelations then you can continue on just as you have with all of your previous posts.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Compromise is a great thing because it's the only way we are ever going to get this to work. However, there is a very big difference between being do-nothings that have publically stated that their only goal is to get Obama out of office and 'obstructionists' that are putting their foot down to stop religiously motivated, ignorant, sexist, racist, and corporatist laws from taking root and hurting average Americans.

Your argument is terrible and you're a terrible person for believing that any of it is anywhere near true or comparable.

Obama launched the first salvo driven by an inflexible ideology. He had the Republican leadership, while they were still in the mood to work with this historic President and compromise, up to the White House as a big PR stunt to discuss his Obamacare legislation. After listening to the Republicans with impatience he said, "That's nice Eric, but we won."

Then he went on a tear, "Don't tell us how to hold the mop!" "Don't tell us how to get the car out of the ditch!" And then after the gobsmaking defeat of the 2010 election, did he make like Clinton and begin an era of compromise, as Ish puts it, deal-making? Oh hell no, his response was, you can get into the back seat, but don't tell us how to drive. Then the Democrats and Boehner reached an agreement on a debt ceiling deal that had everything in it as far as raising taxes on the rich that Obama said he wanted and what did Obama do? He decided to make one more demand for more taxes...

As for the rest of that intolerant hate-filled diatribe against your "enemies," I just posted something in Bert's thread that covers your tone of "civility."

Q: Why are Liberals so Intolerant?

A: Because they know they are always right on every topic, in every discussion and if you cannot see that then you are not smart enough to deserve any respect; the vehicle that lends itself best to this subtle form of intolerance is that their motives are, in all honesty, as pure as the wind-driven snow, as one of my really good liberal friends puts it, I just want to do good and leave the world in a better place, which implies that you disagree with them then your motives boil down to selfishness and greed and it then becomes a passion play, good versus evil and who in their right mind tolerates evil? Evil must be fought to leave the world a better place.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=826746

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Of course you do if you want to have an intelligent discussion. On the other hand if you believe that all of your thoughts are God given revelations then you can continue on just as you have with all of your previous posts.

How can you have seen "Shallow rhetoric" in my posts? It's obvious to me that you, like so many others that are incapable of engaging, that you never read my posts. And like so many others you don't even bother to address the subject, merely engage in ad hominen attacks, no matter how obliquely.

So Sparky, I laid out a question and you dodged. Answer the question. Declare yourself or forever be a waffling suck-up.

Ishmael

Amen bro.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Short answer, that government is there to help people.

And unless you were in the room with the founders and signing the constitution yourself, I could give a fuck what you think you think about what the meaning is SUPPOSED to be. The COURTS have validated much of the federal government's positions on involvement and considering those are constitutional lawyers who deal with it daily and over a period of hundreds of years I'm going to take their stance much more seriously.

By the way Madison and Jefferson have been dead for hundreds of years and this is a country with very different situations than in their time. While it might be interesting to think of what they might have thought of the US today, they aren't here so trying to compare then to now is pretty narrow minded. Does that mean there isn't something we can learn from those perspectives of course not, but to try and take them as the end all be all argument in this situation is again very narrow minded.

No, it is there to protect the people.

They gave us great insight into their thinking and purpose in The Federalist Papers.

This is the fallacy of each age that thinks it has evolved and the human condition has changed. You could not be more wrong. The types of governance and social orders have changed not one whit since the time of the Greek city-states.

From early on we knew that a government devoted to "helping the people" soon becomes a tyranny for it can help not one person without the theft of another persons property and once that theft has a moral base to it, "helping people," then stealing becomes a positive influence of government and the best thieves get rewarded with title and power. Corporations and business people have the limiting actions on their "greed" of the market, but the only limiting factor government has the total collapse of the economy. We are nearing that point in the Western World and it's all based on the purest motive, "I am doing the greater good by doing you a lesser harm."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

n what circumstances does the utopian imagination best thrive? In generally unsettled conditions, in insecurity and suffering...Utopian thinking is no mere exercise in wish-fulfillment; it is a constitutive element of our mental attitude, and, as such, it possesses its own structure....

To overcome individual resistance [to utopian perfection, it] will mean force, but the utopian holds that, if the goal is goodness and perfection, then the use of force is justified. It is even justifiable to establish a special government of the elect as repositories of the doctrine of the perfect society; these elect have the supreme right to oblige every individual to shed his selfishness and to don the garments of a candidate for perfection....

[T]he same paradox characterize all utopian thinkers: they believe in unrestrained human freedom' at the same time, they want so thoroughly to organize freedom that they turn it into slavery. Clearly then, the utopian has certain philosophical presuppositions about the past of the human race, its mature and potentialities. He uses his assumptions toward constructing an imaginary community and world order....

Contemporary statolatry ... is the expression of utopian man's confidence that the world is converging toward larger units of total and beneficial power.

Thomas Molnar


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...utopian_socialism_ending_1.html#ixzz25mVpkXPv

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Obviously not a student of the Constitution or the Federalist papers. Just another parasite.

Ishmael

I proved you to be a pompous ass who doesn't know how the government works.

STFU Mr. Know-it-not.