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

[Jets]

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.

Not in the least. I was waiting for a response to Post 34.

 

[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.

Not in the least. I was waiting for a response to Post 34.

I know to ask

 

[BlindBoo]

And Compromise is the fastest way to the Fascism Democrats are forcing down America's throat.

</sarcasm>

Amirite?

 

[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?

Jets, is that an accurate description of your position?

I'm guessing it isn't.

He said that it was "complicated", but essentially the Founders needed to collaborate with the slave owners for a greater cause, which superseded the rights of the slaves.

 

[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.

He said that it was "complicated", but essentially the Founders needed to collaborate with the slave owners for a greater cause, which superseded the rights of the slaves.

I'm well aware of how things like complexity and nuance affect you people.

 

[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?

Jets, is that an accurate description of your position?

I'm guessing it isn't.

Not in the least. I was waiting for a response to Post 34.

I know to ask

So we learn from Progressives like yourself that the Founding Fathers were right to all sign the Constitution, even though it meant throwing the slaves under the bus.

Which leads us today. What complicated greater good should be fought for that destroys our rights as well?

Population control anyone? China instituted a mandatory child limit of one child years ago for the common good. Was this good Mac?

 

[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?

Jets, is that an accurate description of your position?

I'm guessing it isn't.

He said that it was "complicated", but essentially the Founders needed to collaborate with the slave owners for a greater cause, which superseded the rights of the slaves.

I'm well aware of how things like complexity and nuance affect you people.

Effect "you" people?

LOL.

Are you saying that you live in an ivory tower Mac?

That would explain a lot actually.

You know it's too bad children are not taught about Founding Fathers like George Mason.. Instead, they are taught that the white race is what is evil, that is, the only evil in an otherwise relative world of Leftism where evil does not really exist.

 

[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.

Not in the least. I was waiting for a response to Post 34.

I know to ask

So we learn from Progressives like yourself that the Founding Fathers were right to all sign the Constitution, even though it meant throwing the slaves under the bus.

Which leads us today. What complicated greater good should be fought for that destroys our rights as well?

Population control anyone? China instituted a mandatory child limit of one child years ago for the common good. Was this good Mac?

I'm not a progressive. You clearly don't know my politics.

I'm used to that here.

 

[Theowl32]

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?

Don't communicate with them. They will drag you down. They have NO TRUTH in them. They ALL USE every minority as political cannon fodder and that is all. Couldn't care less about slavery or unfair labor practices if they tried or else they would have a problem with commie kaepernick collecting $50 mil from a company with factories in Vietnam and takes advantage of slave labor. They do not care. It's all politics and for the ones that don't realize this or ignore this fact are nothing but the useful idiots as I describe.

Not one single reason to get into a discussion with these double talking ignorant marxist puppets.

Literally not one reason. You won't get anywhere and they will only drag you down.


Men are men
Women are Women
No such thing as transgender
Homosexuality IS AN ABOMINATION.

Period. Don't forget it.

 

[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?

Jets, is that an accurate description of your position?

I'm guessing it isn't.

Not in the least. I was waiting for a response to Post 34.

I know to ask

So we learn from Progressives like yourself that the Founding Fathers were right to all sign the Constitution, even though it meant throwing the slaves under the bus.

Which leads us today. What complicated greater good should be fought for that destroys our rights as well?

Population control anyone? China instituted a mandatory child limit of one child years ago for the common good. Was this good Mac?

I'm not a progressive. You clearly don't know my politics.

I'm used to that here.

Feel free not to address any of my points.


To be honest, I'm not really interested in what you label yourself. Honestly, no one cares.

What does matter are your positions on the issues I have brought up.

 

[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?

Don't communicate with them. They will drag you down. They have NO TRUTH in them. They ALL USE every minority as political cannon fodder and that is all. Couldn't care less about slavery or unfair labor practices if they tried or else they would have a problem with commie kaepernick collecting $50 mil from a company with factories in Vietnam and takes advantage of slave labor. They do not care. It's all politics and for the ones that don't realize this or ignore this fact are nothing but the useful idiots as I describe.

Not one single reason to get into a discussion with these double talking ignorant marxist puppets.

Literally not one reason. You won't get anywhere and they will only drag you down.


Men are men
Women are Women
No such thing as transgender
Homosexuality IS AN ABOMINATION.

Period. Don't forget it.

True, they can't be reasoned with, but they can be made to look the fool as they are.

 

[Jets]

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.

Not in the least. I was waiting for a response to Post 34.

And I’m still waiting…

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

You know this because its worked in other nations around the globe?
What nation might that be?

 

[Mac-7]

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

You have not collaborated with anyone in years

All you do is attack other peoples ideas and make terse, snide remarks without advocating your own ideas

 

[Mac1958]

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

You have not collaborated with anyone in years
All you do is attack other peoples ideas and make terse, snide remarks without advocating your own ideas

On USMB. Yes.