Principled or Practical?

[The Rabbi]

Can we also get the reps to stop trying to turn us into Somalia and let the poor burn with their houses if they can't afford a fire truck?

You can try anything you want.
Please show where any Republican wanted us to become Somalia and advocated letting poor people burn with their houses.
Or are you a staunch supporter of this man?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco[/ame]

Whitewashing again?

I ask for proof that anyone advocated that and you link to a news story.
Neg repped for stupidity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll take Practical for $1000 Alex. An elected official has to represent ALL his constituents.

I don't see how that's remotely possible. There's simply too many people for that to be a reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

A pol should lay out his basic beliefs about governance etc and then if that appeals to the majority of people, they elect him. Once elected he acts on those beliefs to the best of his ability. That's going to mean compromise on occasion, and give and take. That's how politics works: the art of the possible. But then you get to core principles that aren't negotiable. For everyone that point will be different.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you prefer your representatives to be principled or practical? Some would call standing on principle simply being pigheaded, and others would say being practical is selling out. I would prefer a representative that stands on principle on every issue rather than one that constantly compromises. In Washington the middle way still leads to statism so it's useless.

Our system of government is based on debate and compromise. What you suggest, Kevin, is a different form of government, one based on "Principles".
What are those "Principles"?

I'm merely asking whether you'd rather your legislator be one willing to compromise or whether you'd prefer them to stand on principle. What principle you want them to stand on is your own opinion, and not necessarily the subject of this discussion. My answer is obviously that I want my representative to stand on principle and never compromise on lowering taxes, noninterventionism, limited government, and free markets. Like I said, however, you can substitute your own ideas in for principles because we're not discussing whose ideology is the best.

 

[JBeukema]

You can try anything you want.
Please show where any Republican wanted us to become Somalia and advocated letting poor people burn with their houses.
Or are you a staunch supporter of this man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

Whitewashing again?

I ask for proof that anyone advocated that and you link to a news story.
Neg repped for stupidity.

Can't even tell where a link goes and you're calling someone else stupid?

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm merely asking whether you'd rather your legislator be one willing to compromise or whether you'd prefer them to stand on principle. What principle you want them to stand on is your own opinion, and not necessarily the subject of this discussion. My answer is obviously that I want my representative to stand on principle and never compromise on lowering taxes, noninterventionism, limited government, and free markets. Like I said, however, you can substitute your own ideas in for principles because we're not discussing whose ideology is the best.

I'm curious as to how you'd like to see this play out in practice. If philosophically irreconcilable positions go head to head and pragmatic compromise isn't possible, how does legislating work? On the one hand, you could let whichever side gets more votes enact its agenda--the minority could oppose the majority's proposals when they come to a vote, of course, but allow the majority to move forward with its agenda so that when your side wins the hearts and minds of the majority of the electorate you can enact yours.

This, of course, isn't the strategy that's emerged over the past few years. Obstruction is becoming the norm. So I suppose what I'm asking you is: in the absence of a willingness to compromise, what role should the minority play?

 

[The Rabbi]

How has "obstruction" become the norm? The GOP has had definite minority status for the past 2 years or more. They are well within their rights to oppose legislation by any means possible. That includes filibusters. And it isn't like the Dems never used the tactic either.

The solution to situations where compromise is impossible is to table the issue. That has been the way with both gun rights and reproductive rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm merely asking whether you'd rather your legislator be one willing to compromise or whether you'd prefer them to stand on principle. What principle you want them to stand on is your own opinion, and not necessarily the subject of this discussion. My answer is obviously that I want my representative to stand on principle and never compromise on lowering taxes, noninterventionism, limited government, and free markets. Like I said, however, you can substitute your own ideas in for principles because we're not discussing whose ideology is the best.

I'm curious as to how you'd like to see this play out in practice. If philosophically irreconcilable positions go head to head and pragmatic compromise isn't possible, how does legislating work? On the one hand, you could let whichever side gets more votes enact its agenda--the minority could oppose the majority's proposals when they come to a vote, of course, but allow the majority to move forward with its agenda so that when your side wins the hearts and minds of the majority of the electorate you can enact yours.

This, of course, isn't the strategy that's emerged over the past few years. Obstruction is becoming the norm. So I suppose what I'm asking you is: in the absence of a willingness to compromise, what role should the minority play?

The minority should simply say "No." Gridlock is about the best thing we can hope for from our government, honestly. Gridlock stops one side from enacting it's latest and greatest hare-brained scheme. Compromise simply gives us the worst of both worlds.

 

[loosecannon]

Our system of government is based on debate and compromise. What you suggest, Kevin, is a different form of government, one based on "Principles".
What are those "Principles"?

it didn't begin this way. it evolved into this.

when the country was founded it was understood that people (public officials) would rise above self interest and certainly partisanship to respond in the best interests of the nation.

We still had a lot of that spirit intact in the early 70s. No more!

 

[shintao]

Do you prefer your representatives to be principled or practical? Some would call standing on principle simply being pigheaded, and others would say being practical is selling out. I would prefer a representative that stands on principle on every issue rather than one that constantly compromises. In Washington the middle way still leads to statism so it's useless.

I want my representative to represent me not himself. However on issues where he does not know his district's mind I expect him to vote on his beliefs.

The problem with that is that there are probably people in your district with the exact opposite view of you living in your district so that can't always apply. With something like the stimulus, where a majority of people are outspokenly against it, that certainly makes sense, but generally it doesn't work out like that.

The answer to the dilemma is to use the nice computerized machines of lottery and home PCs to vote your opinion on daily issues, so there is no doubt what he should do, whether he does it or not. That is representation in 2010 technology. I am told we cannot afford to make a system that is very similar to the lottery machines, and would use those machines for registering your opinion.

 

[shintao]

Our system of government is based on debate and compromise. What you suggest, Kevin, is a different form of government, one based on "Principles".
What are those "Principles"?

it didn't begin this way. it evolved into this.

when the country was founded it was understood that people (public officials) would rise above self interest and certainly partisanship to respond in the best interests of the nation.

We still had a lot of that spirit intact in the early 70s. No more!

The ability to expose the disease with better technology isn't helping the situation, at least until we decide to do the right thing and throw the bums out, fix the constitution so it can't happen again, and put some requirements & laws in place for candidates and legislatures.

 

[The Rabbi]

Our system of government is based on debate and compromise. What you suggest, Kevin, is a different form of government, one based on "Principles".
What are those "Principles"?

it didn't begin this way. it evolved into this.

when the country was founded it was understood that people (public officials) would rise above self interest and certainly partisanship to respond in the best interests of the nation.

We still had a lot of that spirit intact in the early 70s. No more!

Total BS.
First off I am reading an account of the Constitutional Convention and its ratification. Gov Clinton of NY did everything he could to block adoption, seeing it as threatening his own power. There was lots of that, and plenty of allegations back and forth. Where do you think the Federalist Papers came from?

As for the 1970s, wasn't that the era of Watergate? Wilbur Mills mean anything to you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I want my representative to represent me not himself. However on issues where he does not know his district's mind I expect him to vote on his beliefs.

The problem with that is that there are probably people in your district with the exact opposite view of you living in your district so that can't always apply. With something like the stimulus, where a majority of people are outspokenly against it, that certainly makes sense, but generally it doesn't work out like that.

The answer to the dilemma is to use the nice computerized machines of lottery and home PCs to vote your opinion on daily issues, so there is no doubt what he should do, whether he does it or not. That is representation in 2010 technology. I am told we cannot afford to make a system that is very similar to the lottery machines, and would use those machines for registering your opinion.

That would cost a lot of money, especially in trying to protect such a system against inevitable fraud.

 

[Charles_Main]

Do you prefer your representatives to be principled or practical? Some would call standing on principle simply being pigheaded, and others would say being practical is selling out. I would prefer a representative that stands on principle on every issue rather than one that constantly compromises. In Washington the middle way still leads to statism so it's useless.

The 2 are not always mutually exclusive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you prefer your representatives to be principled or practical? Some would call standing on principle simply being pigheaded, and others would say being practical is selling out. I would prefer a representative that stands on principle on every issue rather than one that constantly compromises. In Washington the middle way still leads to statism so it's useless.

The 2 are not always mutually exclusive.

True, they don't have to be. However, I think in Washington they usually are.

 

[Charles_Main]

Do you prefer your representatives to be principled or practical? Some would call standing on principle simply being pigheaded, and others would say being practical is selling out. I would prefer a representative that stands on principle on every issue rather than one that constantly compromises. In Washington the middle way still leads to statism so it's useless.

The 2 are not always mutually exclusive.

True, they don't have to be. However, I think in Washington they usually are.

Usually yep. There are exceptions. Like right now I Believe it is both Principled and Practical for Conservatives to favor Cutting spending.

 

[loosecannon]

Our system of government is based on debate and compromise. What you suggest, Kevin, is a different form of government, one based on "Principles".
What are those "Principles"?

it didn't begin this way. it evolved into this.

when the country was founded it was understood that people (public officials) would rise above self interest and certainly partisanship to respond in the best interests of the nation.

We still had a lot of that spirit intact in the early 70s. No more!

Total BS.
First off I am reading an account of the Constitutional Convention and its ratification. Gov Clinton of NY did everything he could to block adoption, seeing it as threatening his own power. There was lots of that, and plenty of allegations back and forth. Where do you think the Federalist Papers came from?

As for the 1970s, wasn't that the era of Watergate? Wilbur Mills mean anything to you?

The republicans were willing to impeach their republican president in 73.

NEVER
HAPPEN
TODAY!

Bub!

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th Century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority.

Developing simultaneously in France, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the American colonies, the movement was buoyed by Atlantic Revolutions, especially the success of the American Revolution, in breaking free of the British Empire. Most of Europe was caught up, including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia, and Scandinavia, along with Latin America in instigating the Haitian Revolution. The authors of the American Declaration of Independence, the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791, were motivated by Enlightenment principles.[1]

The "Enlightenment" was not a single movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals, and a strong belief in rationality and science. Thus, there was still a considerable degree of similarity between competing philosophies.[2] Some historians also include the late 17th century, which is typically known as the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism, as part of the Enlightenment; however, most historians consider the Age of Reason to be a prelude to the ideas of the Enlightenment.[3] Modernity, by contrast, is used to refer to the period after The Enlightenment; albeit generally emphasizing social conditions rather than specific philosophies.

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural Law
Just as reason and observation had been applied to the physical world of Nature- so too, reasoned these men of the Enlightenment -should these same Natural Laws be applied to human behavior. Just as Natural Laws had been found to govern the natural process of Nature, so it was hoped that Natural Laws governing morality, Government and the social order would be found by reason and observation. It is this attempt to find the Natural Laws, or self-evident truths, of human behavior and apply them to knowledge, Government, and religious belief that is called the Enlightenment. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was one of the better known thinkers of the Enlightenment. He believed that it is civilization that is evil, and that man is by nature good until corrupted by Society.

It was this supposed "innate goodness" of human nature that made man capable of using his uncorrupted human reasoning to govern Society. Catholic Theologian Thomas Aquinas also taught that man's reasoning powers or intellect were not fallen or corrupted. Aquinas formulated the concept of Natural Law based on the theories of Aristotle. And the theories of Aquinas and Aristotle were to be the chief sources for Jesuit Theology and philosophy. -The Jesuits, pg. 202

read the whole second link, rabbi

The Age of "Enlightenment"

 

[The Rabbi]

So that's your argument? That GOP members were willing to vote for impeachment (although none actually did) of Nixon in '73 (or whenever that was)?
FAIL.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The 2 are not always mutually exclusive.

True, they don't have to be. However, I think in Washington they usually are.

Usually yep. There are exceptions. Like right now I Believe it is both Principled and Practical for Conservatives to favor Cutting spending.

Well what I mean by practical is compromising.

 

[loosecannon]

So that's your argument? That GOP members were willing to vote for impeachment (although none actually did) of Nixon in '73 (or whenever that was)?
FAIL.

actually that's called win, you failed.