Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile?

[The T]

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say, and you are correct. But I don't share your concern, removing the career politicians from DC is worth it.

Then you create career lobbyists...a lot of them. Which is worst?

I would also ban lobbying-----------its nothing but legalized bribery.

They can LOBBY all they like...just make it illegal for any politician to accept any gifts in any form from any group...including CASH.

What is lobbying anyway but convincing/swaying someone to your point of view? Just have to remove the monetary aspect from it in ALL forms.

If a lobbyists words aren't convincing enough? That's where it ends.

 

[RKMBrown]

If democrats want our income they should get on their knees and work for it like bill's intern. Why should I pay them for being a pain in the ass?

 

[Plasmaball]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile? Simply because they share nothing in common.

We are americans and want to see our county grow...your post is further reasoning as to why it won't happen.

 

[Redfish]

Then you create career lobbyists...a lot of them. Which is worst?

I would also ban lobbying-----------its nothing but legalized bribery.

They can LOBBY all they like...just make it illegal for any politician to accept any gifts in any form from any group...including CASH.

What is lobbying anyway but convincing/swaying someone to your point of view? Just have to remove the monetary aspect from it in ALL forms.

If a lobbyists words aren't convincing enough? That's where it ends.

Ok, I am with you on that. Kind of hard to enforce, but the idea is sound.

 

[Redfish]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile? Simply because they share nothing in common.

We are americans and want to see our county grow...your post is further reasoning as to why it won't happen.

the difference is in what we believe will cause the country to grow and prosper. You libs want to copy the policies of Greece, we want to copy the policies of the first 200 years of the USA.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile? Simply because they share nothing in common.

We are americans and want to see our county grow...your post is further reasoning as to why it won't happen.

the difference is in what we believe will cause the country to grow and prosper. You libs want to copy the policies of Greece, we want to copy the policies of the first 200 years of the USA.

I just want to be free.

 

[Redfish]

We are americans and want to see our county grow...your post is further reasoning as to why it won't happen.

the difference is in what we believe will cause the country to grow and prosper. You libs want to copy the policies of Greece, we want to copy the policies of the first 200 years of the USA.

I just want to be free.

only after the govt takes everything you own and gives it to someone who did not earn it. Only then, can you be totally free in the nation of libtardia.

 

[Paperman299]

A fascinating thread. For the first five pages, I counted all the posts which:

1) declared or strongly inferred that the poster would refuse any compromise
2) brought up partisan grievances (unprovoked)
3) suggested secession

Posts which attempted to describe the ideological dichotomy or political gridlock, but with some kind of bias, I ignored.

I counted 14. All conservative posts.

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were. And it's not even to say that no liberals got mean or pushed their own versions of events aggressively, because they did. But every single one of those who in some way rejected compromise outright (in the first five pages) did so from an extremely conservative position.

 

[Fishlore]

Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile? Simply because they share nothing in common.

We are americans and want to see our county grow...your post is further reasoning as to why it won't happen.

the difference is in what we believe will cause the country to grow and prosper. You libs want to copy the policies of Greece, we want to copy the policies of the first 200 years of the USA.

I got that part about the XIII Amendment from Old Clivden last week, but what about the protective tariff? Do you really want to ban cheap Asian imports and subsidize American manufacturing? What's it going to be, Alexander Hamilton or "free trade"?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Liberals breathe the same air as me and I just can't stand it. I want my damn dirty air to myself. They opt to not share my dirty water and instead try to "save" the earth by drinking water bottled in PLASTIC.

Terrible creatures

 

[Nutz]

A fascinating thread. For the first five pages, I counted all the posts which:

1) declared or strongly inferred that the poster would refuse any compromise
2) brought up partisan grievances (unprovoked)
3) suggested secession

Posts which attempted to describe the ideological dichotomy or political gridlock, but with some kind of bias, I ignored.

I counted 14. All conservative posts.

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were. And it's not even to say that no liberals got mean or pushed their own versions of events aggressively, because they did. But every single one of those who in some way rejected compromise outright (in the first five pages) did so from an extremely conservative position.

I don't know if you are right or wrong in your assessment of this particular thread, but if you judge conservatives by what some of the wackos post on this forum, you are not as open minded as you want to portray yourself to be. Most rational people realize a lot of the posters who spew their vitriol are pseudo-conservatives or radical liberals and not representative of the norm.

 

[Paperman299]

A fascinating thread. For the first five pages, I counted all the posts which:

1) declared or strongly inferred that the poster would refuse any compromise
2) brought up partisan grievances (unprovoked)
3) suggested secession

Posts which attempted to describe the ideological dichotomy or political gridlock, but with some kind of bias, I ignored.

I counted 14. All conservative posts.

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were. And it's not even to say that no liberals got mean or pushed their own versions of events aggressively, because they did. But every single one of those who in some way rejected compromise outright (in the first five pages) did so from an extremely conservative position.

I don't know if you are right or wrong in your assessment of this particular thread, but if you judge conservatives by what some of the wackos post on this forum, you are not as open minded as you want to portray yourself to be. Most rational people realize a lot of the posters who spew their vitriol are pseudo-conservatives or radical liberals and not representative of the norm.

I think I took pains to show I wasn't painting all conservatives with the same broad brush:

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were.

 

[Nutz]

A fascinating thread. For the first five pages, I counted all the posts which:

1) declared or strongly inferred that the poster would refuse any compromise
2) brought up partisan grievances (unprovoked)
3) suggested secession

Posts which attempted to describe the ideological dichotomy or political gridlock, but with some kind of bias, I ignored.

I counted 14. All conservative posts.

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were. And it's not even to say that no liberals got mean or pushed their own versions of events aggressively, because they did. But every single one of those who in some way rejected compromise outright (in the first five pages) did so from an extremely conservative position.

I don't know if you are right or wrong in your assessment of this particular thread, but if you judge conservatives by what some of the wackos post on this forum, you are not as open minded as you want to portray yourself to be. Most rational people realize a lot of the posters who spew their vitriol are pseudo-conservatives or radical liberals and not representative of the norm.

I think I took pains to show I wasn't painting all conservatives with the same broad brush:

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were.

My point is that you are calling some people conservatives who are not conservatives.

 

[Paperman299]

I don't know if you are right or wrong in your assessment of this particular thread, but if you judge conservatives by what some of the wackos post on this forum, you are not as open minded as you want to portray yourself to be. Most rational people realize a lot of the posters who spew their vitriol are pseudo-conservatives or radical liberals and not representative of the norm.

I think I took pains to show I wasn't painting all conservatives with the same broad brush:

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were.

My point is that you are calling some people conservatives who are not conservatives.

I think they would disagree with you. Regardless, none of those who refused to compromise held extreme liberal views, and that's not significant?

 

[Nutz]

I think I took pains to show I wasn't painting all conservatives with the same broad brush:

My point is that you are calling some people conservatives who are not conservatives.

I think they would disagree with you.

Maybe, maybe not. Its sort of like the person who thinks they are a great singer, but in reality they sound like a feral cat in heat.

Regardless, none of those who refused to compromise held extreme liberal views, and that's not significant?

They just aren't willing to admit it. A lot of the pseudo-conservatives on this forum are knee jerk reactionaries and are limited in their ability to communicate because they are so full of rage and bitterness. The same was true for liberals when Bush was in office.

 

[Redfish]

A fascinating thread. For the first five pages, I counted all the posts which:

1) declared or strongly inferred that the poster would refuse any compromise
2) brought up partisan grievances (unprovoked)
3) suggested secession

Posts which attempted to describe the ideological dichotomy or political gridlock, but with some kind of bias, I ignored.

I counted 14. All conservative posts.

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were. And it's not even to say that no liberals got mean or pushed their own versions of events aggressively, because they did. But every single one of those who in some way rejected compromise outright (in the first five pages) did so from an extremely conservative position.

Nice try, but when you listen to the liberals in DC, compromise means agreeing with them. They wanted compromise on the ACA bill, but only if the republicans voted for it as written, no floor debate was allowed, no GOP amendments were allowed, no one read it before it became law---------------is that what you call compromise?

 

[Paperman299]

My point is that you are calling some people conservatives who are not conservatives.

I think they would disagree with you.

Maybe, maybe not. Its sort of like the person who thinks they are a great singer, but in reality they sound like a feral cat in heat.

Regardless, none of those who refused to compromise held extreme liberal views, and that's not significant?

They just aren't willing to admit it. A lot of the pseudo-conservatives on this forum are knee jerk reactionaries and are limited in their ability to communicate because they are so full of rage and bitterness. The same was true for liberals when Bush was in office.

It's a theory, anyway. You're not really offering anything to support it, though. In fact it's nearly unfalsifiable, which is always suspicious. If there was a thread from Bush's era on the USMB that came up with a similarly one-sided count on the subject of compromise or something similar, for example, that'd be something.

But as to conservatives vs pseudo-conservatives. Case in point - is Redfish a conservative? Three of those fourteen posts I counted were his.

 

[Nutz]

I think they would disagree with you.

Maybe, maybe not. Its sort of like the person who thinks they are a great singer, but in reality they sound like a feral cat in heat.

Regardless, none of those who refused to compromise held extreme liberal views, and that's not significant?

They just aren't willing to admit it. A lot of the pseudo-conservatives on this forum are knee jerk reactionaries and are limited in their ability to communicate because they are so full of rage and bitterness. The same was true for liberals when Bush was in office.

It's a theory, anyway. You're not really offering anything to support it, though. In fact it's nearly unfalsifiable, which is always suspicious. If there was a thread from Bush's era on the USMB that came up with a similarly one-sided count on the subject of compromise or something similar, for example, that'd be something.

But as to conservatives vs pseudo-conservatives. Case in point - is Redfish a conservative? Three of those fourteen posts I counted were his.

LOL...I can tell I am going to tire of you pretty quickly, but I will play for now.

1. You are new to this forum, you aren't familiar with how people post, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

2. If you posted on forums when Bush was President, you would realize liberals were pretty disgusting in their banter. I don't know if it is tit-for-tat for some conservatives or the bitterness of losing the elections...but indeed, when Bush was President, the liberals were fiercely upset. I am not sure how long USMB has been around, but I would suggest you check the archives at some other forums and do your counting.

As for Redfish, I am not that familiar with him so I cannot say one way or the other. I can say if you counted his post, you should have actually read it. He was using a real world example to illustrate his point. That is viable, no?

 

[Paperman299]

1. Thanks for your understanding? But many others pointed out the discrepancy on this thread. It's what gave me the idea to count it up. Were they all unaware of how people post here?

2. I have to concede to you here. I am definitely too lazy to take the trouble to prove my point a second time. But, respectfully, suggesting there is evidence that disputes mine, and then telling me to go find it, is not a strong argument. And I doubt if you would accept that from me if the situation was reversed.

3. I did not count Redfish's most recent post. As I said before, I only covered the first five pages. Lest you think I'm dodging, though, had Redfish's most recent post been in the first five pages, I would have counted t under my second criterium. Each side has a massive history of grievances they can call on, yet it was only certain conservative posters like Redfish who attempted to shut down the possibility of compromise by dragging the thread down this infinite regress.

 

[RKMBrown]

A fascinating thread. For the first five pages, I counted all the posts which:

1) declared or strongly inferred that the poster would refuse any compromise
2) brought up partisan grievances (unprovoked)
3) suggested secession

Posts which attempted to describe the ideological dichotomy or political gridlock, but with some kind of bias, I ignored.

I counted 14. All conservative posts.

This is not to say that there weren't conservatives who entered the thread in the spirit it was created, who discussed the problem even-handedly and contemplated solutions, because there were. And it's not even to say that no liberals got mean or pushed their own versions of events aggressively, because they did. But every single one of those who in some way rejected compromise outright (in the first five pages) did so from an extremely conservative position.

Nice try, but when you listen to the liberals in DC, compromise means agreeing with them. They wanted compromise on the ACA bill, but only if the republicans voted for it as written, no floor debate was allowed, no GOP amendments were allowed, no one read it before it became law---------------is that what you call compromise?

Compromise to a democrat is agree to give them your money so they can piss it away.