Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not much would change. There'd be petty squabbles, misunderstandings, childish alliances and pretty much the same sort of mindless power brokering as we see happening everywhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Some might call it wrong...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Cue Kristallnacht comparisons in three, two...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I think we were in power we could come to some agreement for a wide range of things. Yes there would be fighting, but you will always have that in any system of goverment that is not a type of dictatorship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
I agree. I'm all for that on Day 2. Day 1 get rid of the crazy talkers, anarchists, and hard core liberals. Day 2, lots of good things and coming together (maybe even some musical numbers and talking forrest creatures).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Or we would just get rid of you, Rappy, Wolf and go about out merry without you. In the end there are more of us then there are of you.

---

Quote:

---

Then you'd be left with an organized pile of hot mess, resembling on Occutard encampment. Which, while entertaining to watch, wouldn't actually accomplish very much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Then you'd be left with an organized pile of hot mess, resembling on Occutard encampment. Which, while entertaining to watch, wouldn't actually accomplish very much.

---

...I thought y'all were trying to make an argument AGAINST having liberals, crazy talkers, and anarchists in the government.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Would we be any better at compromise than the goonches in charge in real life?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Then you'd be left with an organized pile of hot mess, resembling on Occutard encampment. Which, while entertaining to watch, wouldn't actually accomplish very much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You want to play model UN? Have at it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I think it's more that he, like the Republicans/Tea Partiers, want total control; the concept of compromise has already been clearly shown as something they have no desire for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

What sort of government are we making? Is it just the United States with different people in charge? If so, who is the President?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So just out of curiosity, where would you be willing to compromise?

What government programs that you really like would you be willing to reduce or end to reduce government spending? I'm not talking about normal liberal targets like military budget or crop subsidies and the like, but stuff that you really thing is a good idea, and is good for your concept of what government should be doing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So if we were the leaders of the US, ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You want to play model UN? Have at it.

---

No it would be model US. What, don't have the courage to try it? Afraid that you could not compromise or get any of your ideas passed?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I would think that would depend on what is offered in return.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I would think that would depend on what is offered in return.

---

If you're the ones who really want compromise, shouldn't you make the first offer? What are you willing to give up?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Besides, Raptor has no interest in such things ..."

It struck me in the other thread where he posted a blank video and never noticed until it was pointed out to him, TWICE. People who REALLY want to communicate tend to review their posts - Did that come across? Was it complete? Was my spelling OK? Did I address the point?

Apparently not Raptard. Nope.

And that tells me tons about what he's doing here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I'd be quite happy to look at everything and anything, as I'm well aware there are useless and/or badly-managed programs supported by the government which we SHOULD do away with. As for

Quote:

---

stuff that you really thing is a good idea, and is good for your concept of what government should be doing

---

why would I be willing to cut something which I FIRMLY believe is good for the country and its people? That doesn't make sense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"What government programs that you really like would you be willing to reduce or end to reduce government spending? I'm not talking about normal liberal targets like military budget or crop subsidies and the like ..."

Why not? After all, if you can't argue for something on its CONCRETE MERITS (and not vague words like 'security' or 'liberty') - and I presume any decisions would be made only after discussion - then what is the basis for your insistence on your fixed position?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I would be willing to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by 50 and 25 billion dollars respectivly if you agree to reduce Military spending by 150 billion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:why would I be willing to cut something which I FIRMLY believe is good for the country and its people? That doesn't make sense.

---

You do realize that this is pretty much exactly what the Republicans are saying?

They're willing to do away with what they consider wasteful useless programs, but stuff that they FIRMLY believe in, like not increasing taxes or spending, they aren't likely to compromise on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Fine with me. However, I'm afraid that trying to cut Medicare/Medicaid is gonna be a poison pill with the electorate for either party.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is why the concept of 'compromise' doesn't always work. Not everything CAN be compromised on.

Say I want to have sex with your wife and daughter. You object. I listen to your objections, but reiterate that I REALLY want to have sex with both of them. As I see it, it's the right thing to do. You object again. I then ask for you to work with me, compromise, meet me half way...just let me have sex with your daughter, and we'll call it even.

See how absurd that is ? And yet there are some who are so in love with the process, the idea of "compromise", they've lost sight of what it is that 's really important.

Which is why being a country of laws, and not of man, is what's so crucial. We don't have mob rule or a pure democracy, where the simple needs of the majority win out, every time. We have a constitution, and a framework of principles, with which to work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:.

You also have to remember that the framers of the constitution made it so that we could change that constitution. They understood that if it was unchanging it would be doomed to fail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Umm.... ok. What are you wanting to change ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Umm.... ok. What are you wanting to change ?

---

Nothing right now. I was mearly responding to your statment regarding the constitution as our nations frame work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
My point on the constitution was to show that we're a nation of laws, not men. Do you understand what that even means ? If you want to have a separate conversation on constitutional amendments, fine, but this talk of compromise is futile with out a basis on which to work. Which is why I was including the comments I did, where Niki says she'll compromise, but not on the crucial points SHE thinks are important.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
HUH??

The points SHE thinks are vital are often the very ones I think should be abolished entirely, or greatly reduced. Healthcare isn't a 'right'. You have no 'right' to another person's time or life, and yet Niki here seems to think she does. On this, there IS no compromise.

---