Time for Moderates to grow a set of balls

[Mr.Nick]

See this is where it gets confusing, because both sides claim they are following civil liberties, and both parties believe it. But the truth is that both parties are constantly breaking the constitution, but each side believes that only the other is.

I'm not going to dispute that, which is why I'm a Libertarian.

Our Bill of Rights is not a living document. Our emotions which inspire change may be, however our Bill of Rights is etched in stone.

I believe we need to leave our "wants" or "emotions" at the door and respect our civil rights.

We cant bend them or abolish them because we want X, Y, Z etc..

We have the Bill of rights to prevent ideas like that from becoming rule....

Sorry did not realize you were a Libertarian. I have a ton of respect for libertarians on their principals of freedoms. I was thinking you were a republican, who I do not respect on those lines. All in all on the concept of freedoms (in my opinion) libertarians are the closest to getting it right.

edit: I should say, by FAR the closest to getting it right.

Most republicans are aligned with libertarian views (at least where I'm from)...

Democrats are more a threat to freedom.

Some republicans can be tyrannical asshats tho.

 

[rightwinger]

In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal

In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness

There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.

It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.

Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls

I don't understand how one can be moderate...

So breaking the constitution is only OK some of the time?

That would make moderates, actually progressive.

In my book you either stand for a man/womans civil liberties or you don't, if you're in the middle you're fucking confused - that or don't know your rights or constitution.

Our Constitutional values are in better shape than at any time in the last 200+ years. Americans have more freedom than at any time in our history

 

[MaggieMae]

So what do you think the Democrats and the President should compromise on?

Why did you leave out Republicans?

A perfect example of a major compromise was last December's agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for another two years, after a year of Obama saying he wouldn't agree to that. BUT, what he got in return for acquiescing was:

An extension of unemployment benefits for another 13 months.

The estate tax temporarily raised to 35% with a $5 million exemption.

A 2% cut in the payroll tax for all workers.

See? Piece of cake.

and now apparently he wants to pull the plug on the 'extension' and raise rates, which have been increased on investment income ala obamacare already which will take effect too, in the "out years" as obama described it....so he gets the 3.8% from obama care and wants to reestablish the older higher investment taxes one more time on top of that....

It's a "negotiating" position, since the Republicans refuse to consider even eliminating the most expensive and overly-used tax loopholes. There WILL BE some sort of revenue generating compromise, trust me, but I doubt that outright raising the tax rate even on capital gains is it.

 

[Contumacious]

That is what compromise is

Only children expect to get their way all the time

Yeah man.

Freedom is a bad thing.

We need to be partially enslaved.

.

What a completely useless reply

Thanks.

Here is a moderate who grew a pair:

.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

See this is where it gets confusing, because both sides claim they are following civil liberties, and both parties believe it. But the truth is that both parties are constantly breaking the constitution, but each side believes that only the other is.

I'm not going to dispute that, which is why I'm a Libertarian.

Our Bill of Rights is not a living document. Our emotions which inspire change may be, however our Bill of Rights is etched in stone.

I believe we need to leave our "wants" or "emotions" at the door and respect our civil rights.

We cant bend them or abolish them because we want X, Y, Z etc..

We have the Bill of rights to prevent ideas like that from becoming rule....

Yes, the Bill of Rights ...and the Constituition as well...are living documents. Now before you get your panties in a ruffle...that "living" (really "changing") shouldnt and mustnt come from activist judges changing meanings of words and usurping legislative power.

They are living because they can be AMENDED or CHANGED via laws. The process for changing them is long and laborious...but that's what the FF's wanted.

I'm not so sure of this. As for the Bill of Rights itself, I think all 10 of these (rights) are pretty basic, which shouldn't be changed in the future (baring some major unseen changes that I cannot predict at this moment). For the most part I think the only one of them with any real controversy around it is the 2nd amendment.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't understand how one can be moderate...

So breaking the constitution is only OK some of the time?

That would make moderates, actually progressive.

In my book you either stand for a man/womans civil liberties or you don't, if you're in the middle you're fucking confused - that or don't know your rights or constitution.

See this is where it gets confusing, because both sides claim they are following civil liberties, and both parties believe it. But the truth is that both parties are constantly breaking the constitution, but each side believes that only the other is.

I'm not going to dispute that, which is why I'm a Libertarian.

Our Bill of Rights is not a living document. Our emotions which inspire change may be, however our Bill of Rights is etched in stone.

I believe we need to leave our "wants" or "emotions" at the door and respect our civil rights.

We cant bend them or abolish them because we want X, Y, Z etc..

We have the Bill of rights to prevent ideas like that from becoming rule....

The bill of rights is actually way too broad. It should not include the "rights" of lobbyists to use blackmail and clubs for the purpose of intimidating elected officials into voting for their special interests.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Yeah man.

Freedom is a bad thing.

We need to be partially enslaved.

.

What a completely useless reply

Thanks.

Here is a moderate who grew a pair:

.

didnt anyone every tell you that invoking Hitler in politics is always a sign of desperation? Every time is happens the media butchers whoever did it. Hitler was not a moderate, he was an extremist to the fullest, but he wasn't a conservative or liberal extremist he was a fascist extremist, a hate extremist, and a white extremist.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah man.

Freedom is a bad thing.

We need to be partially enslaved.

.

What a completely useless reply

Thanks.

Here is a moderate who grew a pair:

.

2 for 2

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah man.

Freedom is a bad thing.

We need to be partially enslaved.

.

What a completely useless reply

Thanks.

Here is a moderate who grew a pair:

.

We can always count on a few inbreds trying to stink up the place. Pathetic.

 

[Mr.Nick]

In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal

In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness

There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.

It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.

Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls

The fucking Gestapo is out there and you have the fucking audacity to say that?

Do you have any idea how the Patriot Act has destroyed our civil liberties??

Local governments have used that piece of shit to create their own laws which allow them to play Nazi SS officers and guess what? its only happening in states where democrats play...

Look at my sig dummy...

Thats my dad getting fucked.....

Thats your civil liberties in action.



Our Constitutional values are in better shape than at any time in the last 200+ years. Americans have more freedom than at any time in our history

 

[yidnar]

At times like this, when each side is itching for a train wreck, the moderates are badly outnumbered. And there are times like trying to make a compromise is worse than the smash. Cutting the baby in two is not the best solution. One side or the other will have to loose. The moderates will have to decide which bunch of zanies to jump on board with.

It doesn't mean cutting the baby in two at all. It means policy should be made by reasoned decisions during negotiations over what needs to be given up in order to keep part of what you want, not half. That's how negotiations are conduced in any given situation, from ending wars to who takes the last piece of cake. Right now, neither party will budge and the piece of cake is going stale.

Thats right. There's a reason while governing is termed "the art of compromise". Don't expect the Rabbi to be able to comprehend this though. He's of the mindset, as are MANY other conservatives, that "we have to destroy the village to save it"

: NAME ONE DAMN THING CONSERVATIVES HAVE DESTROYED IN THIS COUNTRY!!!it's left wing nanny state government knows best policies that has wrecked the inner cities,the economy,schools,and just about every damn thing else they have touched.

 

[asterism]

Well to a point I see democrats and the president already starting to compromise, but I don't see it from the other side. Spending is out of control, and they do seem to be willing to fix part of this at least. But they are getting nothing from republicans at all. But honestly I would like to see them add a year to SS retirement age, and a year to when you are able to recieve medicare, as these two things would go a LONG way to balancing the budget for years.

So you would just continue to kick the can down the road. Wonderful.

You say the Dems and the Prez have already compromised. Show us where.

All I've seen is the President storm out of a meeting saying "Don't make me call my bluff".

kicking the can down the road? huh? this makes no sense this is actually a way to fix the problem, as much as SS can be fixed. The real problem with SS retirement is people keep living longer and longer, in the past 30 years life expectancy has risen 1 1/2 years, making retirement difficult . But adding 1 year would let SS retirement run a surplus for the next 15 years. Unfortunetly how long people live is continuosly changing, so the laws that govern it must do the same.

Where have they compromised? Obama agreed to 140B-170B a year in cuts (depending on whose side you listen to) he asked for 20-30B a year in cutting tax loopholes. So let me get this straight, the part that has the most power asks for 20 and is willing to give 140 and the other side says they aren't willing to give anything.

Those spending "cuts" aren't cuts at all. They are reductions in a projected rate of increase and even if implemented don't take place for years while the increases in the proposed tax rates take effect immediately.

That's not compromise.

The GOP compromised when it voted to cut Social Security contributions without cutting the entitlement and extended jobless benefits (instead of converting the permanently unemployed to welfare) in exchange for a two year freeze on tax hikes.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I'm not going to dispute that, which is why I'm a Libertarian.

Our Bill of Rights is not a living document. Our emotions which inspire change may be, however our Bill of Rights is etched in stone.

I believe we need to leave our "wants" or "emotions" at the door and respect our civil rights.

We cant bend them or abolish them because we want X, Y, Z etc..

We have the Bill of rights to prevent ideas like that from becoming rule....

Sorry did not realize you were a Libertarian. I have a ton of respect for libertarians on their principals of freedoms. I was thinking you were a republican, who I do not respect on those lines. All in all on the concept of freedoms (in my opinion) libertarians are the closest to getting it right.

edit: I should say, by FAR the closest to getting it right.

Most republicans are aligned with libertarian views (at least where I'm from)...

Democrats are more a threat to freedom.

Some republicans can be tyrannical asshats tho.

I think your backwards on this, most libertarians are are aligned with republicans, not vice versa. I see neither as a bigger threat to freedom, both as equal, they just do it in different ways. I will argue against the republicans here because you are defending them, not because I am biased towards liberals.
Areas were republicans are against freedoms, rights of gays to marry, abortion (libertarians are split on this one, and me personally wont even make an opinion), and that wiretapping law the Bush passed (drawing a blank on the name).

 

[Contumacious]

What a completely useless reply

Thanks.

Here is a moderate who grew a pair:

.

We can always count on a few inbreds trying to stink up the place. Pathetic.

HUH?

I am proud to call my uncle, father.

.

 

[rightwinger]

The fucking Gestapo is out there and you have the fucking audacity to say that?

Do you have any idea how the Patriot Act has destroyed our civil liberties??

Local governments have used that piece of shit to create their own laws which allow them to play Nazi SS officers and guess what? its only happening in states where democrats play...

Look at my sig dummy...

Thats my dad getting fucked.....

Thats your civil liberties in action.



Our Constitutional values are in better shape than at any time in the last 200+ years. Americans have more freedom than at any time in our history

More Nazi analogies.....looks like you win

Care to name a period in our history where Americans had more freedom?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

The fucking Gestapo is out there and you have the fucking audacity to say that?

Do you have any idea how the Patriot Act has destroyed our civil liberties??

Local governments have used that piece of shit to create their own laws which allow them to play Nazi SS officers and guess what? its only happening in states where democrats play...

Look at my sig dummy...

Thats my dad getting fucked.....

Thats your civil liberties in action.



Our Constitutional values are in better shape than at any time in the last 200+ years. Americans have more freedom than at any time in our history

see this is where you get confusing, you blame the Patriot Act on democrats when it was passed when republicans had a majority in the house, the senate, and had the executive position.

 

[asterism]

Being a moderate doesn't mean giving in or giving up. It comes from the realization that partisan shilling gets us nowhere!!!!

Neither con nor lib has the 100% lock on truth, justice and the American way.

I will say this though...the idea of growing a set of balls is pretty important.

Barack fucking Obama has been trying to compromise since the day he came into office...and it's gotten him nowhere. He needs to realize that if his political opponents aren't going to give in...he shouldnt either. He's tried being a nice guy...now it's time to get tough.

Obama has not compromised on anything. He wanted bigger government and he got it. He wanted more government intrusion into the economy and he got it. He wanted to nationalize industries and he got it. He wanted to move towards single payer healthcare and he got it.

 

[asterism]

Moderates have been in power, folks.

That is probably the reason pretty much everybody from hard left to hard right is sick to death of Congress.

The so called moderate path of give and take has lead us to this state of affairs, folks.

Huh? When were moderates ever in power? Lets see Bush was distinctively to the right until the very end when everything was going down the drain, Obama came in and was hard to the left. He only tried to move closer to the middle the past year when his ratings began to slip, and he realized someone that far to the left was never going to win re-election.

Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, TARP, and the GM Bailout were absolutely not "distinctively to the right."

 

[rightwinger]

Being a moderate doesn't mean giving in or giving up. It comes from the realization that partisan shilling gets us nowhere!!!!

Neither con nor lib has the 100% lock on truth, justice and the American way.

I will say this though...the idea of growing a set of balls is pretty important.

Barack fucking Obama has been trying to compromise since the day he came into office...and it's gotten him nowhere. He needs to realize that if his political opponents aren't going to give in...he shouldnt either. He's tried being a nice guy...now it's time to get tough.

Obama has not compromised on anything. He wanted bigger government and he got it. He wanted more government intrusion into the economy and he got it. He wanted to nationalize industries and he got it. He wanted to move towards single payer healthcare and he got it.

We got single payer healthcare?

 

[asterism]

It isn't ideology that if you raise taxes not only will you not cut the deficit, in fact the deficit will grow. That is the lesson of history that Obama and the Dums seem to forget. Nor is it ideology that the welfare state is bankrupting us, nor is is ideology that Obama's deficits dwarf Federal budgets of 20 years ago. Nor is it ideology that the fed gov is filled with overlapping duplicative programs that are proven failures. All of that is fact.
What is ideology is that raising taxes on the rich is done in the interest of "fairness", as Obama said.
‪Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains - "For Purposes of Fairness"‬‏ - YouTube

or as in the video;

Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains - "For Purposes of Fairness"

charlie rose asks why he would raise capital gains when history shows cap gains revenue goes higher when the rate is lower....*shrugs"

I believe in the principal you pay as you go....

How far back in history, though? The low 15% over the last decade has NOT trickled down by those investors able to enjoy that low rate. If it had, I'd agree.

Then where did the net 4.4 million jobs gained under Bush come from?