(11-09-2012 07:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'd encourage Republicans to do nothing else for the next 4 years.

I agree. If I were the Democrats, I would do everything in their power to compromise and when your rightwing teabagging moron types do nothing. No tricks using the rules, just straight forward stuff to show the tea baggers are the obstructionists. You lose the House in 2014 and we can finally get this country moving forward.

(11-10-2012 01:55 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  If you combine the total votes for Republican house candidates and do the same for Democratic house candidates, the Democrats received more votes. Republicans maintained the House because of gerrymandering and the fact that more state-level legislatures are in the hands of Republicans.

At any rate, one and a half branches of the two branches that make laws are in the hands of the Democrats. Why act like a bunch of ass holes and just constantly cry like little children in the floor instead of acting like adults, sitting down at the table, and discussing and working together to do something constructive?

Pot calling kettle. Have you already forgotten how ObamaCare was passed? I'm with Ron Paul on this ... compromise isn't the solution, compromise is THE PROBLEM. Democrats want more welfare. Republicans want more warfare. They compromise and have more of both. Every. F***ing. Year.

Yeah! Just look where compromise got us with Clinton and Gingrich! Nothing but a measly balanced budget with a sizable surplus!

(11-11-2012 11:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah! Just look where compromise got us with Clinton and Gingrich! Nothing but a measly balanced budget with a sizable surplus!

That wasn't exactly compromise, UCF.. it was a lot of "stare downs'. honestly each side making sure the extremist ideas they each had didn't go through. Welfare reform would probably be the one big exception... Both wanted it, but wanted different levels of it done.


There's a difference between modern Democratic and Republican's leadership ideas of "compromise" today, and even as recently as the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years.

I'd have to find Dingy Harry's words.. but it was along the lines of "Compromise is them capitulating on what we want, and us capitulating on nothing they want".

(11-11-2012 11:24 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I'd have to find Dingy Harry's words.. but it was along the lines of "Compromise is them capitulating on what we want, and us capitulating on nothing they want".

And that is exactly the Republicans' stance as well.

(11-11-2012 11:30 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 11:24 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I'd have to find Dingy Harry's words.. but it was along the lines of "Compromise is them capitulating on what we want, and us capitulating on nothing they want".

And that is exactly the Republicans' stance as well.

That's why I wrote both "Democrats and Republican leadership of today", mixd.. i wasn't picking on one side or the other, i just remember DH's words.. I"m sure Boener's said something similar along the way (

(11-11-2012 11:24 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 11:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah! Just look where compromise got us with Clinton and Gingrich! Nothing but a measly balanced budget with a sizable surplus!

That wasn't exactly compromise, UCF.. it was a lot of "stare downs'. honestly each side making sure the extremist ideas they each had didn't go through. Welfare reform would probably be the one big exception... Both wanted it, but wanted different levels of it done.

Clinton vetoed welfare-reform twice, and then (less than 4 months before the election) signed it the third time around, even though it was "Worse" from the liberal/Democrat point of view. The GOP Congress made it "worse" in the hopes Clinton would veto it again, and they could run on it in the campaign. Clinton's top adviser Dick Morris warned him that could be a problem in November, so he caved. It's forgotten now, but a handful of liberals turned away from Clinton over the "betrayal."

By the way, that "surplus" and "balanced budget" was mostly smoke and mirrors. Not 100%, but mostly. The media hated Gingrich and normally wouldn't have let him get away with such a hollow claim -- but it served Clinton's purposes, too, so each side basically went along with it.

It was closer to anything else we've had in our lifetimes, and I don't think anyone would argue against us striving to get back to such 'smoke and mirrors' is a bad idea.