And Brit's list does not even include Immigration Reform which seemed pretty good and included a lot of additional border security.
Anyway the conclusion that Brit makes is that the inability to get things done is the fault of both parties and the result is a stalemate. Maybe a little less bigotry and a little more common sense would help.
You keep using the word "bigotry", and that is WAAAAAAAAYYYYY out of context. I am NOT a bigoted person, and I resent the accusation. I think ALL people are equally stupid. What I AM is firm in my political convictions. You might say that I have a closed mind, but I say that if your mind is TOO open, your brains will fall out.
What I am is one who is firm in his convictions and has been a politically active registered voter for 45 years, as a member of both major parties at different times. I believe that the republican party is where it is because when democrats say "compromise" it means that republicans get next to nothing and democrats get nearly everything they wanted.......and republicans are justifiably angry about that. The result is that republicans are tired of giving in on everything and are now digging in their heels and refusing to give in any longer, and democrats are going to have to learn that "compromise" no longer means they get to rape the republican party at their pleasure.
Of course, I'm no longer a republican, so you can't even logically say that I am bigoted party-wise. I'm a proud Liberative Conservatarian independent...... which means that I believe BOTH parties can go suck an egg......but the democrats can suck an ostrich egg.
I really wish you would start using the word "bigoted" in its correct context.......particularly when "unwavering" is a more accurate descriptive in this case.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
The worst problem with the casual use of labels like bigot or Hitler is they lose their meaning. Calling Cruz satanic hurts his popularity with middle ground mushminds, so it's an effective slur, but long after Cruz is out of the public eye there will be one thing remaining. Cruz isn't really pulled down so much as Satan got a boost. If Cruz is satanic, Satan ain't so bad. I don't see horns and a tail. Bad judgement, sure, a pitchfork and sulfurous breath, nope.
I'd prefer satanic hyperbole where it belongs. Hitler, Bin Laden, those sorts.
On the other hand, there are things about Cruz that bug me.
For instance, Trump is where he is because Republicans will set aside the voice of the people for secret negotiation in back rooms. They are much less evil than Democrats in all regards, but their long years of politicking behind closed doors has paid off. They finally invented Trump, a little too well, they now protest.
Cruz answers this threat whelped by unholy back room communion with a back room plot with Kasich. Odd thinking. I hope it's not revealing a side of his character.
I would never argue Trump would make a good President. I don't think he would. I also would never argue that Cruz won't be a disappointment if he gets into the White House. He might be.
Trump is a creation of Republican leadership, and that goes all the way down the command chain. When my Rep, Kyle Kacal, helped put Joe Strauss in the Speaker's chair once again he was laboring and risking his district for Trump. He just didn't realize it at the time.
For me, if Trump is the candidate, I'm voting for Trump.
If Cruz is the candidate, it will be the second time I'll vote for a woman on the lower half of the ticket.
Yeah, yeah, I know. She drove HP to rack and ruin. Based on Trump's look-how-much-I-won metric, she's a proven loser. But she's pro Second Amendment, I like that, and I really like what often rides along with respect for the right to keep and bear. Freedom and guns, it's a thing.
TAM I apologize and did not intend to offend you. In fact I greatly respect your ideas and writings as can be seen in my earlier posting at http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1071903 . You appear to be well informed and I was curious what your sources were.
Before, in this thread when I referred to a "possibly bigoted dissertation" I really did mean "unwavering" - as you suggest. Note that I never called you that personally and my last reference that you are reacting to above was solely for Congress. My perception, right or not, is that there is too much ideology and unwillingness to compromise, generally, but especially in Congress.
dale blanker wrote: My perception, right or not, is that there is too much ideology and unwillingness to compromise, generally, but especially in Congress.
Dale, may I offer something to consider?
Willingness to compromise is what got us where we are. We don't need more of it, we need less of it. Not on trivial things. On things that matter. An unwillingness to compromise might also be called personal ethics. A moral compass, and by "moral" I mean issues of right and wrong, not Bible thumping.
Ideology is a good thing, if the ideology isn't idiocy. Conservatism is an ideology, just like secular humanism, capital-D Democrat thinking, Republican thinking - if you have a belief system, you have an ideology. Where you draw the line on defending it defines your willingness to compromise.
Kim Jung makes-me-ill, whatever his name is, the fat murderous - satanic? - dweeb in North Korea, might be a good example of someone who isn't an ideologue. I don't think whimsical, unlimited self-gratification rises to the noble level of ideology.
Not trying to be a bore, although probably succeeding. It's just always struck me odd that an ideologue is assumed to be a closed minded person.
We have compromised ourselves into $19,000,000,000,000 of debt and that is just one of many areas in which we have compromised too much.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
FWIW, Obamacare, was the straw that broke the back of compromise, making it no longer possible while he is in office. If you stop to think about it for a moment, the refusal to compromise on both sides actually represents the will of The People......however ham-handed and clumsy. What has pushed republicans over the edge, completely destroying any possibility of future compromise, is Obama's use of executive orders to circumvent the will of The People. Actually, it has pushed democrats over the edge too, making them see totalitarianism as a good thing - at least when it's their guy in office.
As bad as Bill Clinton was as president, he knew how to communicate, bargain, and deal with the majority republican House he was dealt. He realized that, to continue to have even a modicum of success as president, he was going to have to work with that Congress, or his presidential legacy would be a disaster. For better or for worse, Bill Clinton did not believe in an imperial presidency. (His harridan of a wife is another matter entirely.)
Obama is very much his opposite in that regard. He absolutely IS an imperial president - domestically. (In foreign policy, he is a eunuch.) His ideology does not include a defense of national borders. It does not make room for the fundamental individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution or on the limits it places upon gov't. It does not make room for the separation of powers. It does not make room for a due respect for tradition or the common virtues. It does not make room for reverence for founding principles. It does not make room for any kind of disagreement. It is always his way, or the highway.
The democrats in Congress feel no need to make the usual kinds of compromises that the minority party has always acceded to throughout our nation's history because they have an imperial president who is their champion, and who is willing to circumvent the Constitution so that they are relieved of the responsibility of doing their jobs.
THESE are the circumstances in which republicans find themselves, and yet there are people who think that republicans should compromise with uncompromising democrats - even when it has been decades of republican caving in to democrats every time republicans had the majority that brought us to this point.
Let me be clear: For republicans to compromise with democrats is to continue the downward slide into irrelevancy this nation is embarked upon. The republican hope is that by refusing to compromise any longer, they can arrest the downward slide. But for things to improve, the democrats have to start compromising. Until that happens (and I have zero hope that it will because everything they sell is predicated upon envy of what someone else has), the best we can hope for is for republicans to continue refusing any further compromise with democrats, and the worst that can happen is for republicans to relent and cave in to uncompromising democrats.
And that is not the biggest problem we have! The biggest problem we have is that Obama has transformed the nature of the presidency by ignoring his constitutional mandates and limits, and setting a precedent for future presidents. Oh sure, democrats LOVE his imperial presidency..... but how are they going to feel when someone from another party hostile to their ideology gains the office and starts ruling like an obama-esque autocrat? They're going to HATE it and complain miserably. But we'll be able to say "Shut your pie-hole! Where were YOU when YOUR guy was using the Constitution for butt-wipe. And you think that's bad? Consider Donald Trump as an imperial president. For better or for worse, that has a low probability because Trump gets his butt kicked in virtually every poll against Hillary Clinton........and Hillary Clinton will be even LESS shy about using the presidency as an imperial office than Obama was.
Yeah, we're screwed.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
"You may all go to H3ll, and I will go to Texas." - Davy Crockett
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
NRA Life Member
לעולם לא תשכח
We owe more than we have. In fact, we owe more than anyone has.
The thing I've never been able to grasp is why every dollar bill in my pocket isn't title to some unit of wealth, it's a note. An interest bearing debt.
Sorry to be so academic but I still think some compromise may be a good thing. Every prospective plan should be weighed on its ROI and additional short term debt or increase in revenue may not be wrong if its promises to be worthwhile in the long term. Every investment should have regular review and possible adjustment.
Did you see on 60 minutes about members of Congress "dialing for dollars"? That practice bothers me a lot more than possible compromise.
The problem with compromise is that, to the liberals, it is merely a weapon. A weapon they can beat us over the head with so they can steal something from the American people.
I first became aware or the following quote a few years ago when JALLEN posted it and TAM pointed to the source at The LawDog Files. Although it applies to gun rights (this IS a gun forum after all), it also applies to pretty much every issue the Dems have pushed for during the past 150 years or so.
Like the original author, I'm done with their version of "compromise".
I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
Points well taken. I guess I was thinking more of the definition of ideology I find in my Oxford Dictionary, the one handiest at the moment:
1 (pl. ideologies) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy: the ideology of republicanism.
• the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual: a critique of bourgeois ideology.
• archaic visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.
2 archaic the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.
I am not against compromise in the sense of honestly working to a common goal, adjusting method to accommodate the other guy.
When it gets to the point core values are set aside in the name of compromise, it's more surrender and not something I like.
Scott Farkus wrote:However, on the assumption the Trump gets the nomination, I would beseech you and others to please choke it down one more time and vote for him.
That will never happen. Millions and millions of conservatives will writein Cruz rather than vote for Trump. If Hillary is elected, that's on the GOP and the fools who vote for communists like her. I am done compromising, done talking about compromising and done supporting people who compromise. We are so far from what America is supposed to be that we are on the edge of the cliff. There is no ground left to give, and frankly I will not give any more. You push me, you're going to get pushed back harder. You want to let men into women's bathrooms, you will find me to be an implacable foe. You can spout "rights" and call me bigot until you turn blue. I WILL NOT GIVE AN INCH. I''m done with the GOP. I'm done with weak-kneed lily-livered politicians. Either you stand firmly on the Constitution or get the heck out of my way.
We have two choices now. Save the country or start the revolution.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
Scott Farkus wrote:However, on the assumption the Trump gets the nomination, I would beseech you and others to please choke it down one more time and vote for him.
That will never happen. Millions and millions of conservatives will writein Cruz rather than vote for Trump.
Maybe, but Cruz himself will be supporting and surely voting for Trump. He took the pledge.
Scott Farkus wrote:However, on the assumption the Trump gets the nomination, I would beseech you and others to please choke it down one more time and vote for him.
That will never happen. Millions and millions of conservatives will writein Cruz rather than vote for Trump.
Maybe, but Cruz himself will be supporting and surely voting for Trump. He took the pledge.
All three of the remaining GOP candidates have abandoned that pledge.
(FWIW, I think Cruz had the best reason, but I'm not sure it's good enough to not bother me)
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
