When it comes to finding comprise between the left and the right, I think the right has no idea...

[TyroneSlothrop]

Thank you for showing that the OP's idea of "compromise" is what we have been saying, the left's way or no way.

Fascist.

You all thought you were Alpha tough guys what happened ? LOL

**** off, dipshit.

Triggered triggered LOL

it's all you deserve, you cheap, dime-store hack.

Trump is a corrupt traitor

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

• 
  Alex Jones: “What happens, Wolf Blitzer, when somebody pumps rounds into your little pumpkin head"

 

[martybegan]

yeah, but progressives can never cut spending. They just take the new income from the tax increases, and then 2 years later when people and businesses move out, they wonder where the income went, and raise taxes again.

Or they go with the whole "If we don't raise expenditures by 5% as we planned", that's actually a "cut".

Save the dogma, not interested. I'd be more than happy to cut about a trillion for you, starting with weapons the defense department doesn't even want and gifts to oil and gas companies already making billions.

Defense is actually a federal responsibility, and worthy of funding.

And funny you call tax deductions "gifts"

Is your refund a gift? Is your standard deduction a gift?

When I can write shit off because of the tax code, that's a gift. Oil and gas has been getting gifts for 100 years here.

No, it isn't. It being a gift implies the government owns your money, and gives back to you out of the goodness of its own heart.

The opposite is true, and what independent people believe.

When the government says, hey, here's a nice big loophole which means you don't have to pay taxes on that while others do, that's a gift. Same as if you are gassing up the car and the bill is - zero dollars. They don't have to hand you a check to hand you a gift.

They pay plenty of taxes, from payroll to extraction taxes, and corporate taxes. What are you talking about?

 

[RightyTighty]

...how to describe what that looks like.

Sure, the rightwing will claim to care about comprise with the leftwing, but the reality is that they don't even know what that looks like. Republicans in office will declare something and their base will simply adhere to it.

Tell me republicans: what are issues you are willing to compromise with liberals on?

Now i know many of you will say "well **** you! You lost the election derp, derp, derp!"
The problem with that is that you claim liberals are fascist, yet you are apparently too dense to realize that your own perspective is fascist.

The current political atmosphere has been brought on specifically because Republicans have been backing themselves into a 'no-compromise' corner for the last 15+ years, with conservative media leading the charge.

America was founded on the idea of forced compromise. Separation of powers is forced compromise incarnate. No person, party, entity, or other group is to have total power over the population, that was the very intent of the US Constitution.

Republicans have trashed that idea the last 15 years and declared they were finished compromising. Ignoring the Constitution outright.

Bullshit.

What would happen if Roe got overturned? Most Blue States would feel no impact, only Some Red states would go full ban.

Most places that don't want to participate in SSM related events have said they do not turn away gay people for point of sale items, they just don't want to contract for something related to the ceremony. So as rightydippy has been posting, this is evidently an area for NOT ONE STEP BACK.

Again, where is the compromise?

When you work out the "compromise" on child rape, give me a call.

Time for you to grow up and realize that you can't always have it - your hateful and bigoted way. Those days are over. Society has moved on.

 

[RightyTighty]

Save the dogma, not interested. I'd be more than happy to cut about a trillion for you, starting with weapons the defense department doesn't even want and gifts to oil and gas companies already making billions.

Defense is actually a federal responsibility, and worthy of funding.

And funny you call tax deductions "gifts"

Is your refund a gift? Is your standard deduction a gift?

When I can write shit off because of the tax code, that's a gift. Oil and gas has been getting gifts for 100 years here.

No, it isn't. It being a gift implies the government owns your money, and gives back to you out of the goodness of its own heart.

The opposite is true, and what independent people believe.

When the government says, hey, here's a nice big loophole which means you don't have to pay taxes on that while others do, that's a gift. Same as if you are gassing up the car and the bill is - zero dollars. They don't have to hand you a check to hand you a gift.

They pay plenty of taxes, from payroll to extraction taxes, and corporate taxes. What are you talking about?

I'm talking about our billions of dollars a year gifts to the oil and gas industry (that they don't need and we do).

 

[martybegan]

After all these years of trying to lump the right with nutters, payback is a ***** isn't it?

What is this pathetic mindset that the righties seems to live in? Payback? lol, are you in grade school?

I would NEVER think to put things I criticize you righties for as a standard for what I do. I don't understand why you would want to.

You are pretty much saying "You liberals are so discusting...so let me take example" lol.


Now as to your claim of me lumping the right with murderous nutters - the claim is pure fabrication, I've never done that or agreed with doing that. These are mentally sick people assigning to whom any particular cohesive ideology is a mistake.

the whole SJW movement is ALL ABOUT payback! That is your current progressive movement.

And my view has always been "your ideas are idiotic" not disgusting, or evil. Progressives are the ones who think people who disagree with them are evil, not me.

And again, you may not have, but guilt by association has long been a progressive tactic. They got it from those moral majority idiots from back in the 80's.

 

[martybegan]

Thank you for showing that the OP's idea of "compromise" is what we have been saying, the left's way or no way.

Fascist.

I'm so sorry that there is no compromise on - witch burning (even though your Holy Book says it's okay).

How is a couple having to spend 20 minutes or so finding another baker equivalent to witch burning?

And it's not MY position they I can't participate in gay wedding. I'm all for it as long as the laws are changed by the State legislatures and not imposed by the Courts.

Unlike you, however, I don't feel the need to ruin people who disagree with me via government punishment.

You know, that whole "freedom" thing you were talking about.

People like you are not for freedom for others, you are for freedom for yourself and those who think like you do.

The people don't get to vote on the rights of others. If you don't like the PA laws, don't open one. That is the "compromise". Keep your hatred out of the business world. It doesn't belong there.

That isn't a compromise, its fascism.

And there is no "right" to SSM in the constitution, only in addled minds of crappy Justices.

There's no marriage in the Constitution at all. The fact you don't like it that the law is now being applied to gay couples like it was not so long ago to inter-faith and inter-racial couples cannot be helped. We strive for equality before the law here. We don't compromise on that just to appease your petty hatreds.

I actually like it when States change their marriage laws to recognize SSM. What I don't like is made up rights created by courts. A court that can grant a right due to jiggery pokery can just as easily suppress one.

 

[martybegan]

Thank you for showing that the OP's idea of "compromise" is what we have been saying, the left's way or no way.

Fascist.

You all thought you were Alpha tough guys what happened ? LOL

**** off, dipshit.

Triggered triggered LOL

it's all you deserve, you cheap, dime-store hack.

Trump is a corrupt traitor

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm so sorry that there is no compromise on - witch burning (even though your Holy Book says it's okay).

How is a couple having to spend 20 minutes or so finding another baker equivalent to witch burning?

And it's not MY position they I can't participate in gay wedding. I'm all for it as long as the laws are changed by the State legislatures and not imposed by the Courts.

Unlike you, however, I don't feel the need to ruin people who disagree with me via government punishment.

You know, that whole "freedom" thing you were talking about.

People like you are not for freedom for others, you are for freedom for yourself and those who think like you do.

The people don't get to vote on the rights of others. If you don't like the PA laws, don't open one. That is the "compromise". Keep your hatred out of the business world. It doesn't belong there.

That isn't a compromise, its fascism.

And there is no "right" to SSM in the constitution, only in addled minds of crappy Justices.

There's no marriage in the Constitution at all. The fact you don't like it that the law is now being applied to gay couples like it was not so long ago to inter-faith and inter-racial couples cannot be helped. We strive for equality before the law here. We don't compromise on that just to appease your petty hatreds.

I actually like it when States change their marriage laws to recognize SSM. What I don't like is made up rights created by courts. A court that can grant a right due to jiggery pokery can just as easily suppress one.

The courts didn't grant a right. It found legislation against a right - unconstitutional. That is their job.

As I said, the people do not get to vote on the rights of others. If they did it would still be illegal for ****** to marry a darkie in the South (and illegal to even be gay).

 

[martybegan]

...how to describe what that looks like.

Sure, the rightwing will claim to care about comprise with the leftwing, but the reality is that they don't even know what that looks like. Republicans in office will declare something and their base will simply adhere to it.

Tell me republicans: what are issues you are willing to compromise with liberals on?

Now i know many of you will say "well **** you! You lost the election derp, derp, derp!"
The problem with that is that you claim liberals are fascist, yet you are apparently too dense to realize that your own perspective is fascist.

The current political atmosphere has been brought on specifically because Republicans have been backing themselves into a 'no-compromise' corner for the last 15+ years, with conservative media leading the charge.

America was founded on the idea of forced compromise. Separation of powers is forced compromise incarnate. No person, party, entity, or other group is to have total power over the population, that was the very intent of the US Constitution.

Republicans have trashed that idea the last 15 years and declared they were finished compromising. Ignoring the Constitution outright.

Bullshit.

What would happen if Roe got overturned? Most Blue States would feel no impact, only Some Red states would go full ban.

Most places that don't want to participate in SSM related events have said they do not turn away gay people for point of sale items, they just don't want to contract for something related to the ceremony. So as rightydippy has been posting, this is evidently an area for NOT ONE STEP BACK.

Again, where is the compromise?

When you work out the "compromise" on child rape, give me a call.

Time for you to grow up and realize that you can't always have it - your hateful and bigoted way. Those days are over. Society has moved on.

The fact you need to equate a couple spending 20 minutes finding another baker with Child Rape, an actual crime shows you have no argument, and is quite frankly repulsive.

Most major religions condemn homosexual behavior, evidently many have not moved on, Including 99% of Muslims probably. Lets see you force them to recognize SSM in a Mosque.

 

[martybegan]

How is a couple having to spend 20 minutes or so finding another baker equivalent to witch burning?

And it's not MY position they I can't participate in gay wedding. I'm all for it as long as the laws are changed by the State legislatures and not imposed by the Courts.

Unlike you, however, I don't feel the need to ruin people who disagree with me via government punishment.

You know, that whole "freedom" thing you were talking about.

People like you are not for freedom for others, you are for freedom for yourself and those who think like you do.

The people don't get to vote on the rights of others. If you don't like the PA laws, don't open one. That is the "compromise". Keep your hatred out of the business world. It doesn't belong there.

That isn't a compromise, its fascism.

And there is no "right" to SSM in the constitution, only in addled minds of crappy Justices.

There's no marriage in the Constitution at all. The fact you don't like it that the law is now being applied to gay couples like it was not so long ago to inter-faith and inter-racial couples cannot be helped. We strive for equality before the law here. We don't compromise on that just to appease your petty hatreds.

I actually like it when States change their marriage laws to recognize SSM. What I don't like is made up rights created by courts. A court that can grant a right due to jiggery pokery can just as easily suppress one.

The courts didn't grant a right. It found legislation against a right - unconstitutional. That is their job.

As I said, the people do not get to vote on the rights of others. If they did it would still be illegal for ****** to marry a darkie in the South (and illegal to even be gay).

They made up a right out of thin air, just like they made up the right of government to allow separate but equal via Plessey.

Both concepts are idiotic.

 

[RightyTighty]

...how to describe what that looks like.

Sure, the rightwing will claim to care about comprise with the leftwing, but the reality is that they don't even know what that looks like. Republicans in office will declare something and their base will simply adhere to it.

Tell me republicans: what are issues you are willing to compromise with liberals on?

Now i know many of you will say "well **** you! You lost the election derp, derp, derp!"
The problem with that is that you claim liberals are fascist, yet you are apparently too dense to realize that your own perspective is fascist.

The current political atmosphere has been brought on specifically because Republicans have been backing themselves into a 'no-compromise' corner for the last 15+ years, with conservative media leading the charge.

America was founded on the idea of forced compromise. Separation of powers is forced compromise incarnate. No person, party, entity, or other group is to have total power over the population, that was the very intent of the US Constitution.

Republicans have trashed that idea the last 15 years and declared they were finished compromising. Ignoring the Constitution outright.

Bullshit.

What would happen if Roe got overturned? Most Blue States would feel no impact, only Some Red states would go full ban.

Most places that don't want to participate in SSM related events have said they do not turn away gay people for point of sale items, they just don't want to contract for something related to the ceremony. So as rightydippy has been posting, this is evidently an area for NOT ONE STEP BACK.

Again, where is the compromise?

When you work out the "compromise" on child rape, give me a call.

Time for you to grow up and realize that you can't always have it - your hateful and bigoted way. Those days are over. Society has moved on.

The fact you need to equate a couple spending 20 minutes finding another baker with Child Rape, an actual crime shows you have no argument, and is quite frankly repulsive.

Most major religions condemn homosexual behavior, evidently many have not moved on, Including 99% of Muslims probably. Lets see you force them to recognize SSM in a Mosque.

Religion is for morons. Some things have no compromise. And no one is forcing churches to marry (or even tolerate) gays or gay weddings. You have no argument that hasn't already died in the US courts. Either move on or move away, your call. This liberal nation is obviously not to your liking.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Sad

Trump Confirms He Is Under Investigation And Blames His Own Justice Department

 

[RightyTighty]

The people don't get to vote on the rights of others. If you don't like the PA laws, don't open one. That is the "compromise". Keep your hatred out of the business world. It doesn't belong there.

That isn't a compromise, its fascism.

And there is no "right" to SSM in the constitution, only in addled minds of crappy Justices.

There's no marriage in the Constitution at all. The fact you don't like it that the law is now being applied to gay couples like it was not so long ago to inter-faith and inter-racial couples cannot be helped. We strive for equality before the law here. We don't compromise on that just to appease your petty hatreds.

I actually like it when States change their marriage laws to recognize SSM. What I don't like is made up rights created by courts. A court that can grant a right due to jiggery pokery can just as easily suppress one.

The courts didn't grant a right. It found legislation against a right - unconstitutional. That is their job.

As I said, the people do not get to vote on the rights of others. If they did it would still be illegal for ****** to marry a darkie in the South (and illegal to even be gay).

They made up a right out of thin air, just like they made up the right of government to allow separate but equal via Plessey.

Both concepts are idiotic.

No. They threw out unconstitutional legislation. That is their job. Had your kind not passed laws against gay marriage they wouldn't have had to.

 

[easyt65]

'When it comes to finding comprise between the left and the right, I think the right has no idea what it looks like.'

Yes, we can all learn a lesson in 'compromise' from the Democrats who, after losing the election, called for Impeachment, military coups, and assassination while publicly declaring 100% committment to opposing / Obstructing everything the President and GOP will try to accomplish in the next 3 1/2 years.

Bwuhahahaha...

The OP, like all radically biased snowflakes, is full of delusion and fecal matter.

 

[MarcATL]

Yeah, the left has much better manners indeed. Let's just shoot the people we don't agree with...

Giant ass projection. If you aren't going to play nice, don't expect others to do so. That's ridiculous. Trump is here, over are the days of losing with dignity. Winning is the future...

I know right?

Just ask the FOXNEWS watching gunman that took care Gabby Giffords.

 

[AntonToo]

After all these years of trying to lump the right with nutters, payback is a ***** isn't it?

What is this pathetic mindset that the righties seems to live in? Payback? lol, are you in grade school?

I would NEVER think to put things I criticize you righties for as a standard for what I do. I don't understand why you would want to.

You are pretty much saying "You liberals are so discusting...so let me take example" lol.


Now as to your claim of me lumping the right with murderous nutters - the claim is pure fabrication, I've never done that or agreed with doing that. These are mentally sick people assigning to whom any particular cohesive ideology is a mistake.

the whole SJW movement is ALL ABOUT payback! That is your current progressive movement.

And my view has always been "your ideas are idiotic" not disgusting, or evil. Progressives are the ones who think people who disagree with them are evil, not me.

And again, you may not have, but guilt by association has long been a progressive tactic. They got it from those moral majority idiots from back in the 80's.

I guess good advice is lost on some. You keep flailing about liberals embracing payback...while justifying payback. Behavior of a silly person with zero introspect.

 

[martybegan]

...how to describe what that looks like.

Sure, the rightwing will claim to care about comprise with the leftwing, but the reality is that they don't even know what that looks like. Republicans in office will declare something and their base will simply adhere to it.

Tell me republicans: what are issues you are willing to compromise with liberals on?

Now i know many of you will say "well **** you! You lost the election derp, derp, derp!"
The problem with that is that you claim liberals are fascist, yet you are apparently too dense to realize that your own perspective is fascist.

The current political atmosphere has been brought on specifically because Republicans have been backing themselves into a 'no-compromise' corner for the last 15+ years, with conservative media leading the charge.

America was founded on the idea of forced compromise. Separation of powers is forced compromise incarnate. No person, party, entity, or other group is to have total power over the population, that was the very intent of the US Constitution.

Republicans have trashed that idea the last 15 years and declared they were finished compromising. Ignoring the Constitution outright.

Bullshit.

What would happen if Roe got overturned? Most Blue States would feel no impact, only Some Red states would go full ban.

Most places that don't want to participate in SSM related events have said they do not turn away gay people for point of sale items, they just don't want to contract for something related to the ceremony. So as rightydippy has been posting, this is evidently an area for NOT ONE STEP BACK.

Again, where is the compromise?

When you work out the "compromise" on child rape, give me a call.

Time for you to grow up and realize that you can't always have it - your hateful and bigoted way. Those days are over. Society has moved on.

The fact you need to equate a couple spending 20 minutes finding another baker with Child Rape, an actual crime shows you have no argument, and is quite frankly repulsive.

Most major religions condemn homosexual behavior, evidently many have not moved on, Including 99% of Muslims probably. Lets see you force them to recognize SSM in a Mosque.

Religion is for morons. Some things have no compromise. And no one is forcing churches to marry (or even tolerate) gays or gay weddings. You have no argument that hasn't already died in the US courts. Either move on or move away, your call. This liberal nation is obviously not to your liking.

You are a bigot and probably a narcissist. It's all about "you". Typical progressive.

And this nation may be liberal, but it is not progressive, two different things. Trump was the start of the backlash, expect more, and hope it is made of reasonable people like me, and not some of my less reasonable brethren.

And its only a matter of time before you come after churches, your disdain of religion requires it.

 

[martybegan]

That isn't a compromise, its fascism.

And there is no "right" to SSM in the constitution, only in addled minds of crappy Justices.

There's no marriage in the Constitution at all. The fact you don't like it that the law is now being applied to gay couples like it was not so long ago to inter-faith and inter-racial couples cannot be helped. We strive for equality before the law here. We don't compromise on that just to appease your petty hatreds.

I actually like it when States change their marriage laws to recognize SSM. What I don't like is made up rights created by courts. A court that can grant a right due to jiggery pokery can just as easily suppress one.

The courts didn't grant a right. It found legislation against a right - unconstitutional. That is their job.

As I said, the people do not get to vote on the rights of others. If they did it would still be illegal for ****** to marry a darkie in the South (and illegal to even be gay).

They made up a right out of thin air, just like they made up the right of government to allow separate but equal via Plessey.

Both concepts are idiotic.

No. They threw out unconstitutional legislation. That is their job. Had your kind not passed laws against gay marriage they wouldn't have had to.

Circular argument about the how and not the why.

Laws against issuing SSM licenses were not unconstitutional. A law not recognizing an out of state SSM license WOULD be unconstitutional, under full faith and credit.

Of course this only makes sense if you understand the concept of strict-constructional federalism, which i doubt you can, with your 10 cent head.