"Bipartisanship" is a communist tactic and should be rejected.

[Likkmee]

Bipartisanship:

I see. They all have the same wig

 

[Votto]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

So you would have thrown the slaves under the bus just to form a nation

Understood.

What does that make you then? And what did throwing the slaves under the bus accomplish that was so important that you think it should have been done? What was more important than their freedom?

 

[Lesh]

The leftists actually trying to convince us marxist leaders tolerate opposition.

They are such losers.

Not at all. Leftism is the most successful religion in the modern world, as it is embraced all over the globe now.

In fact, there is no where to run to escape them, so I would not call them "losers" per say

What I would call them is evil, pathetic, hypocritical, and wicked.

But at the end of the day, at the great throne of judgement, yea, I reckon they are all losers in the end.

"evil"? "Wicked"?

How do we compromise with people like you?

We can't. We can only marginalize you

 

[Jets]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

So you would have thrown the slaves under the bus just to form a nation

Understood.

What does that make you then? And what did throwing the slaves under the bus accomplish that was so important that you think it should have been done? What was more important than their freedom?

It makes me a pragmatist who acknowledges what went on back then was more complicated than just the issue of slavery. Either there was going to be a new constitution or not. The reality was that there would have been slavery under the AOC or the Constitution.

 

[Votto]

The leftists actually trying to convince us marxist leaders tolerate opposition.

They are such losers.

Not at all. Leftism is the most successful religion in the modern world, as it is embraced all over the globe now.

In fact, there is no where to run to escape them, so I would not call them "losers" per say

What I would call them is evil, pathetic, hypocritical, and wicked.

But at the end of the day, at the great throne of judgement, yea, I reckon they are all losers in the end.

"evil"? "Wicked"?

How do we compromise with people like you?

We can't. We can only marginalize you

So for the record, people like Hitler should have been compromised with and not labeled as evil or wicked.

People who wished to enslave blacks were also not evil or wicked and should have been compromised with.

I'm sitting here thinking, if more people were like me the Holocaust and Black slavery could have been averted altogether because such men should not be compromised with.

But I reckon you prefer the compromising bit.

 

[eagle7-31]

Do not fall for this tactic. It is a word designed again to break down the republic. Also, don't fall into the false notion that this country is or was ever supposed to be a democracy.

We are supposed to be a country built on opposing views, and debate. Arguing at the top of your lungs your point of view and being able express yourself accordingly.

Bipartisanship is just another ploy to seduce the gullible in making it an entirely compromised system. Shutting your expressions and opinions and silencing voices.

Watch out and look who keeps expressing this notion. Think about it. You think the democrats run by China are all concerned about the stability of this republic and our freedoms?

So, when it is them that pushes "Bipartisanship" what do you suppose the insidious goal is?

Wake up people. I am seeing more and more conservatives falling for this tactic of theirs over the years.

I would not go that far, however bipartisanship to most of the dems means they get 99 percent of everything,

 

[Votto]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

So you would have thrown the slaves under the bus just to form a nation

Understood.

What does that make you then? And what did throwing the slaves under the bus accomplish that was so important that you think it should have been done? What was more important than their freedom?

It makes me a pragmatist who acknowledges what went on back then was more complicated than just the issue of slavery. Either there was going to be a new constitution or not. The reality was that there would have been slavery under the AOC or the Constitution.

So it is "complicated"?

Obviously it is too complicated for you to explain why throwing the slaves under the bus was needed for a much better cause.

But I find when people are trying to defend immoral behavior, all of a sudden things get gray and complicated. All of a sudden good and bad not longer exist. Everything becomes relative.

That is, until Trump steps into a room. Then all of a sudden, Orange man bad.

I guess that is why democrats refused to compromise with Trump on anything as they yelled, "Resist!" to everything he tried to do.

But now that the only bad man on the planet is gone, it's time to get all relative again and pretend we need to compromise with pretty much everyone, no matter how evil they really are, you know, like Stalin whom FDR seemed to love.

 

[Colin norris]

Do not fall for this tactic. It is a word designed again to break down the republic. Also, don't fall into the false notion that this country is or was ever supposed to be a democracy.

We are supposed to be a country built on opposing views, and debate. Arguing at the top of your lungs your point of view and being able express yourself accordingly.

Bipartisanship is just another ploy to seduce the gullible in making it an entirely compromised system. Shutting your expressions and opinions and silencing voices.

Watch out and look who keeps expressing this notion. Think about it. You think the democrats run by China are all concerned about the stability of this republic and our freedoms?

So, when it is them that pushes "Bipartisanship" what do you suppose the insidious goal is?

Wake up people. I am seeing more and more conservatives falling for this tactic of theirs over the years.

There's help out there for your paranoia.
I've seen less nuts in an almond orchard.

 

[Jets]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

So you would have thrown the slaves under the bus just to form a nation

Understood.

What does that make you then? And what did throwing the slaves under the bus accomplish that was so important that you think it should have been done? What was more important than their freedom?

It makes me a pragmatist who acknowledges what went on back then was more complicated than just the issue of slavery. Either there was going to be a new constitution or not. The reality was that there would have been slavery under the AOC or the Constitution.

So it is "complicated"?

Obviously it is too complicated for you to explain why throwing the slaves under the bus was needed for a much better cause.

But I find when people are trying to defend immoral behavior, all of a sudden things get gray and complicated. All of a sudden good and bad not longer exist. Everything becomes relative.

That is, until Trump steps into a room. Then all of a sudden, Orange man bad.

I guess that is why democrats refused to compromise with Trump on anything as they yelled, "Resist!" to everything he tried to do.

But now that the only bad man on the planet is gone, it's time to get all relative again and pretend we need to compromise with pretty much everyone, no matter how evil they really are, you know, like Stalin whom FDR seemed to love.

Nothing complicated at all. It was explained previously. You don’t agree with my response.

The Constitution was being debated between the anti federalists and the federalists. Whether or not they came to an agreement, slavery was not going to be eliminated forthwith. However, “bipartisanship” led to the Constitution which was itself a positive outcome.

 

[Votto]

Why is it we get lectured by Leftists that the Founding Fathers needed to compromise with slave owners to form the country that they now control, but at the same time, their mantra is to throw all our institutions into the dung heap and start over because the nation said is proclaimed by the Left to be based on systemic racism?

Which is it Lefties?

 

[Theowl32]

Do not fall for their tactics folks. Never compromise your principles and certainly NEVER EVER compromise the truth.

Homosexuality IS AN ABOMINATION
Men are men
Women are Women
No such thing as "transgender."
Marxism is evil
There are NO opposition views in Marxism


Do not get sucked into these false notions with words that are more "palatable" that sound "nice."

These useful idiots will drag you to hell. Beware.

 

[Votto]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

So you would have thrown the slaves under the bus just to form a nation

Understood.

What does that make you then? And what did throwing the slaves under the bus accomplish that was so important that you think it should have been done? What was more important than their freedom?

It makes me a pragmatist who acknowledges what went on back then was more complicated than just the issue of slavery. Either there was going to be a new constitution or not. The reality was that there would have been slavery under the AOC or the Constitution.

So it is "complicated"?

Obviously it is too complicated for you to explain why throwing the slaves under the bus was needed for a much better cause.

But I find when people are trying to defend immoral behavior, all of a sudden things get gray and complicated. All of a sudden good and bad not longer exist. Everything becomes relative.

That is, until Trump steps into a room. Then all of a sudden, Orange man bad.

I guess that is why democrats refused to compromise with Trump on anything as they yelled, "Resist!" to everything he tried to do.

But now that the only bad man on the planet is gone, it's time to get all relative again and pretend we need to compromise with pretty much everyone, no matter how evil they really are, you know, like Stalin whom FDR seemed to love.

Nothing complicated at all. It was explained previously. You don’t agree with my response.

The Constitution was being debated between the anti federalists and the federalists. Whether or not they came to an agreement, slavery was not going to be eliminated forthwith. However, “bipartisanship” led to the Constitution which was itself a positive outcome.

So you are saying that allowing the suffering and mistreatment of slaves was justified for a greater cause.

I suppose that depends on your perspective, now doesn't it.

Prick.

 

[Votto]

Do not fall for their tactics folks. Never compromise your principles and certainly NEVER EVER compromise the truth.

Homosexuality IS AN ABOMINATION
Men are men
Women are Women
No such thing as "transgender."
Marxism is evil
There are NO opposition views in Marxism


Do not get sucked into these false notions with words that are more "palatable" that sound "nice."

These useful idiots will drag you to hell. Beware.

Well they don't believe in hell, and certainly don't believe in evil, that is, unless you become a political rival. Then all of a sudden, Orange man bad.

 

[Jets]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

So you would have thrown the slaves under the bus just to form a nation

Understood.

What does that make you then? And what did throwing the slaves under the bus accomplish that was so important that you think it should have been done? What was more important than their freedom?

It makes me a pragmatist who acknowledges what went on back then was more complicated than just the issue of slavery. Either there was going to be a new constitution or not. The reality was that there would have been slavery under the AOC or the Constitution.

So it is "complicated"?

Obviously it is too complicated for you to explain why throwing the slaves under the bus was needed for a much better cause.

But I find when people are trying to defend immoral behavior, all of a sudden things get gray and complicated. All of a sudden good and bad not longer exist. Everything becomes relative.

That is, until Trump steps into a room. Then all of a sudden, Orange man bad.

I guess that is why democrats refused to compromise with Trump on anything as they yelled, "Resist!" to everything he tried to do.

But now that the only bad man on the planet is gone, it's time to get all relative again and pretend we need to compromise with pretty much everyone, no matter how evil they really are, you know, like Stalin whom FDR seemed to love.

Nothing complicated at all. It was explained previously. You don’t agree with my response.

The Constitution was being debated between the anti federalists and the federalists. Whether or not they came to an agreement, slavery was not going to be eliminated forthwith. However, “bipartisanship” led to the Constitution which was itself a positive outcome.

So you are saying that allowing the suffering and mistreatment of slaves was justified for a greater cause.

I suppose that depends on your perspective, now doesn't it.

Prick.

You asked for an explanation and didn’t get the response you were looking for. Now, you are spewing false assumptions.

Get back to me when you are interested in an actual discussion.

 

[Mac1958]

Bipartisanship:

GOOD POINT!
Look at all those likeminded, like-kind individuals.
They share skin color, culture, religion etc etc...a perfect scenario for bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship can NEVER work within a multicultural shithole.

We'll do it without people like you.

 

[surada]

Do not fall for this tactic. It is a word designed again to break down the republic. Also, don't fall into the false notion that this country is or was ever supposed to be a democracy.

We are supposed to be a country built on opposing views, and debate. Arguing at the top of your lungs your point of view and being able express yourself accordingly.

Bipartisanship is just another ploy to seduce the gullible in making it an entirely compromised system. Shutting your expressions and opinions and silencing voices.

Watch out and look who keeps expressing this notion. Think about it. You think the democrats run by China are all concerned about the stability of this republic and our freedoms?

So, when it is them that pushes "Bipartisanship" what do you suppose the insidious goal is?

Wake up people. I am seeing more and more conservatives falling for this tactic of theirs over the years.

You must be stupid.

 

[Mac1958]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

We know that there are many people who simply lack the intellectual & emotional capacity to effectively collaborate with others.

Somehow they have to be marginalized so that they're no longer in control.

And I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but this had better happen before it's too late.

 

[Votto]

Bipartisanship:

GOOD POINT!
Look at all those likeminded, like-kind individuals.
They share skin color, culture, religion etc etc...a perfect scenario for bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship can NEVER work within a multicultural shithole.

We'll do it without people like you.

So Jets thinks it was Ok throwing the slaves under the bus to form the nation, how about you?

Was it a good thing?

If nothing else, at least we will begin to learn who really gives a damn about black people round here.

 

[Mac1958]

Bipartisanship:

GOOD POINT!
Look at all those likeminded, like-kind individuals.
They share skin color, culture, religion etc etc...a perfect scenario for bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship can NEVER work within a multicultural shithole.

We'll do it without people like you.

So Jets thinks it was Ok throwing the slaves under the bus to form the nation, how about you?

Was it a good thing?

Jets, is that an accurate description of your position?

I'm guessing it isn't.

 

[Votto]

There would be no Constitution if not for “bipartisanship”.

Ok which two parties signed the Constitution?

Never stated it involved parties. That being said, both federalists and anti federalists had to compromise for the creation of the constitution.

Isn’t that bipartisanship at work?

Not all the anti-Federalists agreed to the Constitution, like George Mason who said he would not sign the Constitution because allowing slavery would cause a wound so profound in the nation as to tear it apart latter

Was George correct in not signing the Constitution or were those who agreed to allow slavery for hundreds of years in the US correct, only to see the country disintegrate today?

I understand that, but was not debating the merits of why it was signed. I was simply pointing out that it was a form of bipartisanship that led to the document being created.

So you disagree with George Mason or agree with him?

Which is it? Was the "bipartisanship" as good at it is being touted in this thread?

We need an answer.

Mason was entitled to his opinion. I did not agree with him. Compromise for the Constitution was necessary and it involved the abhorrent issue of slavery.

Bipartisanship is a positive force thou it isn’t without its problems.

We know that there are many people who simply lack the intellectual & emotional capacity to effectively collaborate with others.

Somehow they have to be marginalized so that they're no longer in control.

And I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but this had better happen before it's too late.

Should people have collaborated with Hitler?

What about slave owners?

Or did these people simply needed to be defeated?