TrackerNeil Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 can you identify potential areas of common ground between Obama and Republicans? Sure. Obama thinks Ted Cruz is an asshole. Republicans agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Exactly. "Compromise" in this case really just means "GOP give, Obama take". The gall of them, not bending over for a Democratic agenda Lol. You really haven't been paying attention have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 entitlements, regulations, amnesty and gun restrictions are not conservative policies All Obama wants to do is restrict/mandate human activity and redistribute wealth. There's nothing for conservatives there, so opposition makes sense. And the voters agreed with that in 2010 and appear to again in 2014. A loyal opposition is necessary in a healthy democracy. What happened to 2012, commodore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 entitlements, regulations, amnesty and gun restrictions are not conservative policies All Obama wants to do is restrict/mandate human activity and redistribute wealth. There's nothing for conservatives there, so opposition makes sense. And the voters agreed with that in 2010 and appear to again in 2014. A loyal opposition is necessary in a healthy democracy. Yup, nothing for conservatives except the very policies they've professed to support in the past. Your utter denial of reality is a fucking joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yup, nothing for conservatives except the very policies they've professed to support in the past. Your utter denial of reality is a fucking joke. I argued the policies weren't conservative based on doctrine (they expand the state, redistribute wealth, and restrict/mandate the behavior of private citizens). You're saying they are conservative based on what the people advocating them claim to be. One could argue, FDR and JFK opposed public sector unions, therefore opposition to public sector unions is a liberal policy position. But that would be disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I argued the policies weren't conservative based on doctrine (they expand the state, redistribute wealth, and restrict/mandate the behavior of private citizens). You're saying they are conservative based on what the people advocating them claim to be. One could argue, FDR and JFK opposed public sector unions, therefore opposition to public sector unions is a liberal policy position. But that would be disingenuous. You're conflating Liberarianism with conserativism. The two overlaps, but are not identical. For instance, on the issue of surveillance, conservatives are in line with Obama's scope of execution, but not so Liberatrianism. Conservatives are also in principle not aversed to regulating private behaviors, on the issue of abortion, marijuana legalizating, and gay marriages, although they will protest otherwise. So, if you're going to "argue from doctrine," it'd best if you actually follow your own stated parameters and acknowledge these distinctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I argued the policies weren't conservative based on doctrine (they expand the state, redistribute wealth, and restrict/mandate the behavior of private citizens). You're saying they are conservative based on what the people advocating them claim to be. One could argue, FDR and JFK opposed public sector unions, therefore opposition to public sector unions is a liberal policy position. But that would be disingenuous. Let's see if we can spot a difference between what two Democrats said well over half a century ago, and the policy positions held by leading Republicans mere years ago. Next, you asked for common ground between Obama and Republicans. In response I offered positions Republicans recently held that Obama then took up. Now you want to shift into declaring those polices not conservative- but you raised the issue of common ground between Republicans and Obama! Finally, the positions of people who call themselves conservatives and lead conservative politics in this country (the Republican Party and its leadership) and not your decree, are how we measure what's 'conservative' today. That's how it came to be that it's no longer 'conservative' to support slavery, or oppose interracial marriage, conservatives stopped holding these positions and started holding new positions that we now call conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Exactly. "Compromise" in this case really just means "GOP give, Obama take". The gall of them, not bending over for a Democratic agenda Why is it always 'bending over for' something bad or having something 'shoved down our throats?' I mean why these exact phrases. It's kind of creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Because no other groups like gay sex more than conservative Christian straight Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.