[quote]pushharder wrote:
Listening to George Will right now and he just said, TB: “the Founders designed the House to be turbulent.”
This falls in line with what ol’ Push has been saying. It flies in the face of TB’s complaining.
(George Will is no tea partier)[/quote]
A turbulence that forges compromise. Demagogues playing ideological chicken is not what the architects had in mind.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
On another note, I learned something interesting this week:
The Speaker does not technically have to be an elected member of the House.
TB, Congress could elect YOU to be its speaker.
[/quote]
Allen West for speaker!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Politics are inherently about compromise. [/quote]
The Founders built a system where compromise was the designed feature, not a bug.[/quote]
Philosophical question for both of you:
Is there a compromise that shouldn’t be made? Or is anything on the table in the name of compromise?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Philosophical question for both of you:
Is there a compromise that shouldn’t be made? Or is anything on the table in the name of compromise?
[/quote]
Individual freedom, obviously.
But anyone remember the 3/5th compromise?
Ya.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Listening to George Will right now and he just said, TB: “the Founders designed the House to be turbulent.”
This falls in line with what ol’ Push has been saying. It flies in the face of TB’s complaining.
(George Will is no tea partier)[/quote]
This doesn’t fall outside of what I’ve been talking about, but in related news, your next straw man will set a PWI will set new record and you’ll win a set of steak knives.
I understand and expect that the House will be “turbulent” - it is purposely designed to capture the zeitgeist of the era, including rancorous outsiders looking to take on the entrenched.
Turbulence, however, isn’t synonymous with incompetence or self-defeating strategy.
The Tea Parties are all the rancor and none of the competence - they are like the rock band that smashed their instruments at the end of the show, but forgot to play any music prior to said smashing.
Governing is a thing - people expect competence action. Turbulence is fine, but if you can’t govern, you should allow someone who can to take your spot.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Politics are inherently about compromise. [/quote]
The Founders built a system where compromise was the designed feature, not a bug.[/quote]
Philosophical question for both of you:
Is there a compromise that shouldn’t be made? Or is anything on the table in the name of compromise?
[/quote]
I think yes - but I think that would be a very small set of subjects.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
House Republicans torment and cannibalize Boehner, and he steps down.
McCarthy, his likely replacement, bows out at the last second, throwing the House into a leadership crisis and fracturing the party.
[/quote]
This is the standard line from the moderates. “Fracturing” and “cannibalism” and such. Maybe it’s just good ol’ fashioned politics that is actually healthy for the party in this instance.
There is a strong conservative faction, a movement that is sorely needed to pull the GOP back from its drift toward continuing to be a rather bland, tasteless, watery beer – “Democrat Lite.”
The question is whether the timing is right.
[/quote]
Politics are inherently about compromise. A middle road must be found. By adopting maximalist positions and electing maximalist representatives, the GOP is condemning itself to become an anachronism. It must evolve with the domestic and international mileu, or it will die. [/quote]
The Founders built a system where compromise was the designed feature, not a bug.
Tea Partiers don’t know much about history.
Also, on this point, I’d like to reiterate a point I’ve made for years - Tea Partiers are not all that different from Obama. They are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
[/quote]
I agree BUT they’re the RIGHT, the correct, side of the coin. Let’s not lose sight of the reality of “right” and “wrong,” Senor Lukewarm Pontificator.
Don’t ever forget the (Push) maxim, “Straddling a fence is hard on your balls.”[/quote]
Sure, and Tea Party Jacobins are exactly the kind of faction the Founders built a system to protect against - those that, like the Obamabots, are positive they are “right!” and as a result of their ideological certainty they are entitled to an Ends Justifies the Means approach.
The Founders were concerned about such zealots, and that is precisely why we have a government designed to frustrate their uncompromising mission to bring the Truth to millions of Americans who believe in no such Truth.
[/quote]
Yes and no. The Federalists and anti-Federalists were vicious opponents – very, very zealous. Very ideological.
Fact of the matter is most if not all of both of those parties would be well to the right of today’s Tea Party.
I think this is a healthy correction to the “market.” Shake-ups can be a good thing.[/quote]
“Well to the right”? No.
Modern left and right sensibilities don’t translate all that well to those times, but they wouldn’t be generally “well to the right”, in any event. Not on social issues or economic.
And shake ups are fine, if the replacements coming in are smarter and trustworthy to lead a nation. Not so in this case.
Never confuse movement with progress.
You compromise when it makes good sense b to compromise. When compromise allows you to make substantive gains in policy areas and also improve your chances of winning the White House, you it. The Tea Party numbskulls aren’t. Compromise would help their ultimate goal, or what should be their ultimate goal. Truth is, I’m not sure they even have a goal.
Identifying when someone commits the fallacy of straw man - assigning a position to someone who doesnt hold said position and then stupidly attack on it - isn’t hiding behind anything. You’re just really, really bad at it. Pointing that out, inconvenient as it is to your arguments, is just part of it. Stop making the mistake and we’ll all stop pointing it out to you.
Yeah, the concert’s over. The Tea Party types have been around since 2010, and the sun is setting. No leader has emerged, and none is emerging. Boehner’s departure would open up the opportunity for one of the Tea Partiers to step up and proclaim a new era - you’d think - but look at them, the leadership void open and they stand around looking at each other slack-jawed, shrinking from the moment. The moment has come, and hat happens? They get small, and smaller. And everyone is begging a RINO (Ryan Paul) to fill the void the TEa Partiers demanded but didn’t have the gravitas to fill.
Yeah, I get what’s going on just fine, better than you know.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Well to the right”? No.
[/quote]
Yes. Yes, indeed.
Definitely on economic issues. Not even the most ardent Federalist would’ve supported the bloated monstrosity that we have now. None of them, when asked, “Where should major cuts be made in the federal budget?” would’ve weakly replied, “Well, about all I can think of is the Export Import Bank oughta go.”
A Dave Brat intellectually dwarfs an Eric Cantor. Any day of the week.
Never confuse progress with same ol’ same ol’ stale compromise, i.e., more and bigger government.
[/quote]
Economic issues are not limited to the size of the government, far from it. Jeffersonian Republicans (then Democrats) wanted expansion into the West for, among other reasons, the opportunity to provide independent private property ownership chances to the masses so that they could escape “wage slavery” in the labor markets in the burgeoning industrial areas on the east coast. They also promoted policies to sell land in smaller chunks and cheaper prices than The Market would generate.
Is that right? Or left? Push’s Three Page Encyclopedia of Bumper Sticker Answers doesn’t provide an answer, but the only answer we know for sure is it isn’t “well to the right” of modern parties.
That Paul Ryan, just too much of a left-winger to be Speaker.
Choice quote:
"Anyone who attacks Paul Ryan as being insufficiently conservative is either woefully misinformed or maliciously destructive,â?? said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. â??Paul Ryan has played a major role in advancing the conservative cause and creating the Republican House majority. His critics are not true conservatives. They are radical populists who neither understand nor accept the institutions, procedures and traditions that are the basis of constitutional governance.â??
Yep.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
‘We need to look into making sure there aren?t big loopholes where a person can illegally purchase a firearm.’
[/quote]
WAT?
We need to make sure that stuff that is already illegal stays that way? Is that really what he’s saying?
I understand taxation, therefore I loath the word “loophole” like almost no other word. And in gun control it’s use is no different.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Politics are inherently about compromise. [/quote]
The Founders built a system where compromise was the designed feature, not a bug.[/quote]
Philosophical question for both of you:
Is there a compromise that shouldn’t be made? Or is anything on the table in the name of compromise?
[/quote]
I think yes - but I think that would be a very small set of subjects.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
So let’s pick two issues right now.
What should the Left give up for higher taxation that would satisfy the right?
What should the Left give up for “universal background checks” that would satisfy pro-rights folks?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
‘We need to look into making sure there aren?t big loopholes where a person can illegally purchase a firearm.’
[/quote]
WAT?
We need to make sure that stuff that is already illegal stays that way? Is that really what he’s saying?
I understand taxation, therefore I loath the word “loophole” like almost no other word. And in gun control it’s use is no different. [/quote]
Hey, TB and The Great Compromisers don’t want us to look at his record and his own words for proof of his conservatism but rather listen to another congressman who’s less conservative than Ryan. It’s annoyingly disingenuous.[/quote]
I mean, here’s the thing…
Is Universal Background Checks going to lose him his job? No. Mag limits? Probably. “assault weapons” ban? Yup. Are any of those going to stop the next wingnut with a desire to shoot up some innocents? Nope, not at all.
So, if he’s trying to show “mass appeal” and politic, I get that, and I’m not going to shit on him for it just yet. If this is just rhetoric, or he does something awesome like get Cans off the AFT radar, or prohibit the ATF from regulating non-explosive ammo, or get the Hughes Amendment repealed, then fine. But this particular quote is moronic, like straight up fucking dumb as shit.
Personally I’m not going to hold this as a deal breaker. A reason to keep an eye out, yes, deal breaker no. I get “trying to appeal to a broader audience” and “winning people over”. So rhetoric is to be expected. But fucker needs to get his shit straight and have a pro-rights ace up his sleeve if he wants to ADD any regulation, best be repealing two.