When there are only 20 Republicans left in Congress...

I do agree that the quest for 'bipartisanship' is a futile and asinine one. The idea that the 'middle path' is the best one is usually false.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Every time there is political progress on any issue there is a side that wins, and a side that loses.

And you say that I'm the one that doesn't understand politics? Politics is not a zero-sum game where there are only winners and losers. I'm sorry that your world-view is so simplistic.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do agree that the quest for 'bipartisanship' is a futile and asinine one. The idea that the 'middle path' is the best one is usually false.

So... you think that a fanatical, "take-no-prisoners", "accept-no-compromise" attitude is preferable? That's a pretty extreme view to take, IMO.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I do agree that the quest for 'bipartisanship' is a futile and asinine one. The idea that the 'middle path' is the best one is usually false.

So... you think that a fanatical, "take-no-prisoners", "accept-no-compromise" attitude is preferable? That's a pretty extreme view to take, IMO.

No, I don't think that's preferable. But neither should we quest for mediocrity. The minority has a responsibility to insert themselves into the legislative process; this does not mean the majority must bend to their wishes each and every time in a quest for the fabled Middle Path.

You are Appealing to Extremes a little bit. There's a wide gulf between seeking bipartisanship, and denying all compromises.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

That all depends on how you define "progress".

The majority of people originally thought that holding prisoners without civil rights at Guantanamo was a good idea. A majority of people thought that keeping Asians in internment camps during WWII was a good idea.

And let's not forget that it took 100 years after the end of the Civil War before the courts ended segregation. That "battle" was fought for the hearts and minds of people, and it took discussion, sacrifice, and compromise to make it happen.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I do agree that the quest for 'bipartisanship' is a futile and asinine one. The idea that the 'middle path' is the best one is usually false.

So... you think that a fanatical, "take-no-prisoners", "accept-no-compromise" attitude is preferable? That's a pretty extreme view to take, IMO.

No, I don't think that's preferable. But neither should we quest for mediocrity. The minority has a responsibility to insert themselves into the legislative process; this does not mean the majority must bend to their wishes each and every time in a quest for the fabled Middle Path.

Nowhere did I say that one must always bend to the wishes of the minority. On the other hand, I don't think that one should ride roughshod over the opposition just because one can, which, as I read it, is the idea proposed in the original post.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are Appealing to Extremes a little bit. There's a wide gulf between seeking bipartisanship, and denying all compromises.

I'm trying to find out how extreme your views are, and how extreme Ebrown P's views are. IMO, ya'll are pretty far out there.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

People who have an unacceptable ideology are to be defeated (using the allies you have made).

There is nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps you ascribe to the belief that "might makes right", but there is definitely something wrong with that.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

What's sad, is that prior to 2006 he didn't feel this way.

And when Republicans eventually take over the house, congress, or exective branch, he won't feel this way then either.

Hypocritical to the nth degree.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

What's sad, is that prior to 2006 he didn't feel this way.

You know all of Ebrown's thoughts and feelings, do you? Perhaps you should find work as a therapist, what with being telepathic and all.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I've been paying attention to his posts, yes.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I agree, ebrown p. I never liked the idea of bipartisanship. Many of Congress's worst decision have been bi-partisan: The War on Drugs, the "Defense of Marriage Act", the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act... the list goes on and on.

You and I, ebrown, frequently disagree on what's the right thing to do in politics. But we agree that once a politician has figured out the right thing as best he can, bipartisanship is never a good reason to do anything else.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I've been paying attention to his posts, yes.

I'm holding up one finger... can you guess which?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Ring?

And what does this matter to you? Ebrown not able to defend his own hypocrisy?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Are you not able to defend your own assholery?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Was I being an asshole?

I don't recall ANY democrat or liberal leaning person proposing that the Republans who controlled congress should forget about being bipartisen when the Democrats were the minority party.

I can't imagine Democrats wanting to be ignored the next time they are in the minority.

Is it not hypocritical to claim that when one's party is in power, THEN they should ignore the desires of the other party, but when one's party is the minority party that they should be listened too?

Calling a spade a spade is not being an asshole.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Is it not hypocritical to claim that when one's party is in power, THEN they should ignore the desires of the other party, but when one's party is the minority party that they should be listened too?

Except Ebrown hasn't done that, to my knowledge.

I recall he wanted Democrats to be more confrontational, and less accommodating; I don't ever recall him saying that Republicans should listen just because.

maporsche wrote:

Calling a spade a spade is not being an asshole.

Call me when you've managed to do that.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Maybe you missed this quote from Ebrown

"At what point do we get to stop caring about what Republicans ... think?"

He obviously wants the Democrats in power to stop caring what the Republican's think.

He sure wasn't saying anything like this:

"At what point do the Republicans get to stop caring about what Democrats think?"

...when Republicans were in charge.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

That is correct.

Nor did he ever say (to my recollection), "Republicans need to listen and just be nice to the Democrats"

...when Republicans were in charge.

That would make him a hypocrite.

Just like I don't root for the Aggies when they play UT, he is not required to ask the opposition to be less accommodating.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

....

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Remind me again how many republicans voted to pass Obamas finincial plan in a spirit of bipartisianship.

1 Reply

When there are only 20 Republicans left in Congress...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know