Why the Gay Agenda May Tip The Scales for the GOP this Fall

[GenSeneca]

Is that about principles, or is it about representing the interests of Billy?

Look at your role in that story again...

Do you honestly think you were representing the interests of both parties by offering a compromise?

I don't. Clearly you were only serving your own interests and Tommy's at the expense of Billy.

I'd call that unprincipled.

Capitalist Principle of Selfishness: Do not sacrifice yourself to others and do not sacrifice others to yourself; trade value for value.

 

[Revere]

What are Tommy's "interests?"

 

[PLC1]

Look at your role in that story again...

Do you honestly think you were representing the interests of both parties by offering a compromise?

I don't. Clearly you were only serving your own interests and Tommy's at the expense of Billy.

I'd call that unprincipled.

Capitalist Principle of Selfishness: Do not sacrifice yourself to others and do not sacrifice others to yourself; trade value for value.

The point is not do we support the welfare state. The question is whether the representatives we elect should represent their constituents, or their party.

IMO, partisanship is a canker on the nation's butt.

Now, do you agree with that, or would you have our representatives continue to place party over their constituency?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The point is not do we support the welfare state. The question is whether the representatives we elect should represent their constituents, or their party.

IMO, partisanship is a canker on the nation's butt.

Now, do you agree with that, or would you have our representatives continue to place party over their constituency?

well liberals are UnAmerican, so anything you do that helps Republicans...( who are Pro America) is helping all right? so the only way be a good leader...is not listen to 50% of the people ( even when they sometimes are more then 50%)

 

[orogenicman]

Look at your role in that story again...

Do you honestly think you were representing the interests of both parties by offering a compromise?

I don't. Clearly you were only serving your own interests and Tommy's at the expense of Billy.

I'd call that unprincipled.

Capitalist Principle of Selfishness: Do not sacrifice yourself to others and do not sacrifice others to yourself; trade value for value.

Human principle of selflessness: Bily could understand that Tommy is a poor guy who can't afford a bike, and like a true friend, doesn't judge him, and simply lets him ride it once in a while when he's able. I guess sharing is not in today's conservative vocabulary, eh?

 

[Gipper]

Human principle of selflessness: Bily could understand that Tommy is a poor guy who can't afford a bike, and like a true friend, doesn't judge him, and simply lets him ride it once in a while when he's able. I guess sharing is not in today's conservative vocabulary, eh?

Once again your grasp of reality is questionable. Remember what I told you??? You must flip 180 everything you believe.

I agree with your post though I suspect you do not. If Billy chooses to help Tommy, that is just fine. That is private charity, which your Messiah wants to eliminate....

The problem that Gen is pointing out (which you are incapable of understanding due to your affliction) is libs like you demand the government confiscate Billy's property and give it to the weak minded lazy bun Tommy The Liberal.

Do you see the difference?

And, guess who Tommy votes for when he is bussed to the polls?

 

[orogenicman]

Once again your grasp of reality is questionable. Remember what I told you??? You must flip 180 everything you believe.

I agree with your post though I suspect you do not. If Billy chooses to help Tommy, that is just fine. That is private charity, which your Messiah wants to eliminate....

The problem that Gen is pointing out (which you are incapable of understanding due to your affliction) is libs like you demand the government confiscate Billy's property and give it to the weak minded lazy bun Tommy The Liberal.

Do you see the difference?

And, guess who Tommy votes for when he is bussed to the polls?

If flipping 180 degrees everything I believe means that I must act like a greedy, selfish b@#$%^d, no thanks. The constitution makes it very clear that the purpose of government is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

To suggest that helping our fellow Americans in NOT the purpose of government is simply hogwash. It is the very foundation of government. Furthermore, you seem to have this thing where you ridicule your own beliefs by labeling people and ideas you don't like (such as science) as "messiah", and "faith". It trivializes your own religious faith (if you actually have one), and adds nothing to the discussion but vitriole.

And finally, if you have a problem with section 8 of the Constitution, I suggest you ask your representative to promote one more to your liking. Good luck with that, sir.

 

[PLC1]

That is private charity, which your Messiah wants to eliminate....

Jesus wants to eliminate private charity? Really? When did He make that 180 degree turnaround?

 

[GenSeneca]

The question is whether the representatives we elect should represent their constituents, or their party.

Senator X has any number of people with different, and competing, interests in his district... How the hell is he supposed to cater to ALL his constituents?

Or are you just concerned with him catering to a majority of his constituents?

IMO, partisanship is a canker on the nation's butt.

IMO, Compromise is the canker.

Now, do you agree with that, or would you have our representatives continue to place party over their constituency?

Give me a specific example.

In some circumstances you have to vote against your constituents. Take California for example, taxpayers want more goodies paid for by taxpayers but they don't want to pay for it with higher taxes. Nearly the whole country would vote themselves perks from the public treasury but vote against higher taxes to pay for the perks.

 

[orogenicman]

Senator X has any number of people with different, and competing, interests in his district... How the hell is he supposed to cater to ALL his constituents?

Or are you just concerned with him catering to a majority of his constituents?


IMO, Compromise is the canker.


Give me a specific example.

In some circumstances you have to vote against your constituents. Take California for example, taxpayers want more goodies paid for by taxpayers but they don't want to pay for it with higher taxes. Nearly the whole country would vote themselves perks from the public treasury but vote against higher taxes to pay for the perks.

Compromise is the only way anything of substance ever gets done. It is certainly the only way peace gets ever gets made. Case in point. The Republicans are still whining about the Healthcare bill, but the fact is that they did nothing to help make it better because they refused to accept that it was going to happen, that the nationa needed it and wanted it (and want it even more, if the current polls are to be believed). The refused to compromise on any of it, and so the Democrats wrote and passed their own bill. So if the Republicans hate the bill, they only have themselves to blame.

 

[GenSeneca]

Compromise is the only way anything of substance ever gets done.

...Democrats wrote and passed their own bill.

 

[orogenicman]

When you quote mine someone with the intention of twisting their words, make sure they aren't around to point out the part you intentionally left out:

"The Republicans are still whining about the Healthcare bill, but the fact is that they did nothing to help make it better because they refused to accept that it was going to happen, that the nationa needed it and wanted it (and want it even more, if the current polls are to be believed)."

 

[PLC1]

The health care bill was a result of compromise, not so much between Democrats and Republicans as between Democrats and other Democrats. The result was an unfinished job that isn't going to do the main thing that has to be done, which is to reduce costs. Sooner or later, the issue will have to be revisited. When it is, let's hope we can come up with a bipartisan compromise that will work. As long as Democrats are determined that Republicans aren't going to pass anything that the voters will like, and vice versa, nothing will happen.


Along that same vein, did anyone catch Colbert testifying before Congress? The best laugh he got was when he suggested that Democrats and Republicans "continue to work together." That was hilarious, in a sad sort of way.

 

[GenSeneca]

let's hope we can come up with a bipartisan compromise that will work.

I.E. Taxpayer funded single payer system that puts government in charge of all health care.

Any compromise on free market principles will lead to that eventuality.

 

[GenSeneca]

twisting their words

Is compromise "the only way anything of substance ever gets done"? Yes or No

Did the Democrats write and pass their own bill? Yes or No