Democrats have not Compromised/Broken Ranks in at least 50 years

[kiddiedoc]

It only makes sense when you finally understand that they don't actually care about the good of the Nation any more than Hillary or Biden care about black people. It's all a means to obtain and keep power and money.

 

[sonofUT62]

Point is there aren't nearly enough to get anything done

No one’s trying to get anything done. It’s a scam to skin sheep.

 

[sonofUT62]

It only makes sense when you finally understand that they don't actually care about the good of the Nation any more than Hillary or Biden care about black people. It's all a means to obtain and keep power and money.

Yes yes yes yes yes…… or gays. They don’t give a **** about them either.

 

[Sea Ray]

1. Step 1: The President Submits a Budget Request. ...
2. Step 2: The House and Senate Pass Budget Resolutions. ...
3. Step 3: House and Senate Create Appropriation Bills. ...
4. Step 4: The House and Senate Vote on Appropriations Bills. ...
5. Step 5: The President Signs Each Appropriations Bill and the Budget Becomes Law.

Or he could... Veto.

Not exactly:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

Power of the Purse | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

 

[kiddiedoc]

Yes yes yes yes yes…… or gays. They don’t give a **** about them either.

Of course not.

Neither do hockey or (men's) soccer teams. All a show.

 

[utvolpj]

There is only one fiscal conservative in Washington DC to my eye and it's Rand Paul. Fiscal conservatives have nowhere to go

Blame the repub party that still gets complete support. They pushed out anyone who wouldn't go along

 

[hog88]

1. Step 1: The President Submits a Budget Request. ...
2. Step 2: The House and Senate Pass Budget Resolutions. ...
3. Step 3: House and Senate Create Appropriation Bills. ...
4. Step 4: The House and Senate Vote on Appropriations Bills. ...
5. Step 5: The President Signs Each Appropriations Bill and the Budget Becomes Law.

Or he could... Veto.

Go to zero based budgeting for every federal agency/department.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Look who was in the WH for the spending sprees.

Look who controlled Congress who actually controls spending

 

[OrangeTsar]

Let’s see what the great Ayn sayeth….

 

[n_huffhines]

I know, that's my point. The gop did not fight harder to stop spending. They caved every time. I also know that they didn't do much to stop spending when they had the majority too. But historically it's the dimtard party who has destroyed this country

Wrong. Republican congress + Republican POTUS has 100% been a spending disaster.

D POTUS + R congress > R POTUS + R congress = D POTUS + D congress = R POTUS + D congress

 

[n_huffhines]

Let’s see what the great Ayn sayeth….
View attachment 531742

Way too absolute to take seriously.

 

[Sea Ray]

Wrong. Republican congress + Republican POTUS has 100% been a spending disaster.

D POTUS + R congress > R POTUS + R congress = D POTUS + D congress = R POTUS + D congress

The best fiscal situation does seem to be D in the WH and R Congress

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Incorrect. Spending increases under both R and D executive and legislative branches. It also increases under mixed arrangements.

Shh…. They are all in on the scam!!

 

[OrangeTsar]

Way too absolute to take seriously.

First principles and right vs wrong are, by definition, absolute

 

[ClearwaterVol]

First principles and right vs wrong are, by definition, absolute

Absolutism requires one to reside alone secluded from society. Your own little country if you will. Otherwise, to live among others requires compromise.

 

[LouderVol]

Absolutism requires one to reside alone secluded from society. Your own little country if you will. Otherwise, to live among others requires compromise.

Unless your principles are to hurt others you dont have to compromise on either to live in society.

*well unless your principles require you to live in an absolute society with only people who think like you. But that is different than holding an absolute principle itself*

 

[Orangeburst]

Absolutism requires one to reside alone secluded from society. Your own little country if you will. Otherwise, to live among others requires compromise.

That defies the definition of democracy. They aint trying to win majorities to be philanthropist in power.

 

[n_huffhines]

First principles and right vs wrong are, by definition, absolute

IDK what you're trying to say, but I can tell you that we must have compromises on moral questions. It's impossible not to. Do you really want the person who believes the right thing to do is to stone adulterers to be uncompromising on how our government handles this moral issue? You cannot go through life without compromising morals because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

No compromises on matters of truth, knowledge, and rational conviction? We have all been wrong about things we thought we knew to be truth, and her message is to be uncompromising as if we are never wrong about what we rationally conclude?

It's so stupid, and I'm not even a Rand hater. She's not my favorite, but I also think she was right about a lot.

 

[hog88]

IDK what you're trying to say, but I can tell you that we must have compromises on moral questions. It's impossible not to. Do you really want the person who believes the right thing to do is to stone adulterers to be uncompromising on how our government handles this moral issue? You cannot go through life without compromising morals because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

No compromises on matters of truth, knowledge, and rational conviction? We have all been wrong about things we thought we knew to be truth, and her message is to be uncompromising as if we are never wrong about what we rationally conclude?

It's so stupid, and I'm not even a Rand hater. She's not my favorite, but I also think she was right about a lot.

You don't have to compromise your morals, beliefs or values to live in society. You can be totally uncompromising on all 3 as long as you don't try to force them on others with a barrel of a gun (government).

 

[n_huffhines]

You don't have to compromise your morals, beliefs or values to live in society. You can be totally uncompromising on all 3 as long as you don't try to force them on others with a barrel of a gun (government).

I don't think we'll disagree about the talking points involved, but that's not how I look at it.

I have an extremely strong moral conviction that my $ should not go to drone bombings that cause collateral damage and kill innocents. However, if I want to live and work in America, that's what's going to happen. I compromise this moral by existing here. I could go to some other country, but then I'm just going to find them doing different immoral things with my $. I could go off the grid and not pay taxes, but I don't want to live that way. So then I guess you would think I'm dedicating my life to fighting this issue, but I'm not. I am compromising my morals just trying to live in society.

 

[hog88]

I don't think we'll disagree about the talking points involved, but that's not how I look at it.

I have an extremely strong moral conviction that my $ should not go to drone bombings that cause collateral damage and kill innocents. However, if I want to live and work in America, that's what's going to happen. I compromise this moral by existing here. I could go to some other country, but then I'm just going to find them doing different immoral things with my $. I could go off the grid and not pay taxes, but I don't want to live that way. So then I guess you would think I'm dedicating my life to fighting this issue, but I'm not. I am compromising my morals just trying to live in society.

I guess you're right.

Edit: But you are being forced to compromise at the end of a gun.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Absolutism requires one to reside alone secluded from society. Your own little country if you will. Otherwise, to live among others requires compromise.

We are not talking about personal compromise I thought. I believe the discussion was on legislation and compromise on what we allow or oppose. In a compromise between good and evil, there is no improvement, only degradation. If we compromise on theft and decide we will no longer prosecute crimes that steal less than 1000 dollars (as some cities in California have done), evil clearly wins and goodness clearly loses

 

[OrangeTsar]

IDK what you're trying to say, but I can tell you that we must have compromises on moral questions. It's impossible not to. Do you really want the person who believes the right thing to do is to stone adulterers to be uncompromising on how our government handles this moral issue? You cannot go through life without compromising morals because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

No compromises on matters of truth, knowledge, and rational conviction? We have all been wrong about things we thought we knew to be truth, and her message is to be uncompromising as if we are never wrong about what we rationally conclude?

It's so stupid, and I'm not even a Rand hater. She's not my favorite, but I also think she was right about a lot.

Interesting that you used stoning adulterers as your example. I like Christ‘s example. He wouldn’t allow the stoning of the woman caught in adultry; but he didn’t compromise on the fact that it was wrong which is why He told her to go and sin no more. The „compromise“ being asked of us today is to quit calling things sin. We have went from being asked to tolerate things we disagree with to being required to celebrate them. Ask the bakers and florists who didn’t want to work gay weddings.

 

[OrangeTsar]

IDK what you're trying to say, but I can tell you that we must have compromises on moral questions. It's impossible not to. Do you really want the person who believes the right thing to do is to stone adulterers to be uncompromising on how our government handles this moral issue? You cannot go through life without compromising morals because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

No compromises on matters of truth, knowledge, and rational conviction? We have all been wrong about things we thought we knew to be truth, and her message is to be uncompromising as if we are never wrong about what we rationally conclude?

It's so stupid, and I'm not even a Rand hater. She's not my favorite, but I also think she was right about a lot.

 

[n_huffhines]

Interesting that you used stoning adulterers as your example. I like Christ‘s example. He wouldn’t allow the stoning of the woman caught in adultry; but he didn’t compromise on the fact that it was wrong which is why He told her to go and sin no more. The „compromise“ being asked of us today is to quit calling things sin. We have went from being asked to tolerate things we disagree with to being required to celebrate them. Ask the bakers and florists who didn’t want to work gay weddings.

Dude, you're trying to apply her quote to a narrow question when her quote is meant for broad application, which is what I'm mocking. There is nothing wrong with trying to do that, but in no way does it defend the quote from my critique.