Skip to main content

View Diary: Are Senate Democrats willing to fight the tax cut compromise? (416 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Heh. (0+ / 0-)

    Well, whatever.  The fact of the matter is that anyone who thinks that this country wasn't born of a series of grand compromises is seriously wrong.

    Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

    by Inland on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 06:54:42 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And remember when Lincoln compromised (0+ / 0-)

      with the South and let them secede?

      Or when Patrick Henry compromised in his "Give me liberty or give me death" position?

      And who can forget how FDR compromised with the Republicans?

      /s

      •  Actually, Lincoln was willing to allow slavery. (0+ / 0-)

        Lincoln thought that slavery was abhorrent, yet, he would have allowed it to remain forever.

        What's hilarious is, people like you would assume that his willingness to compromise on something as important as slavery meant he would compromise on everything.  How'd that work out for the South?  

        And to take the same numbnuts on the other side, the South was afraid of the slippery slope that would eventually lead to the end of slavery and decided that they had to immediately take an umcompromising stand that would decide the issue forever. How'd that work out for the South?

        Well, I'll have to answer that for you.  People died, lots and lots of them, because some thought that high minded principle meant they couldn't compromise one little bit, and they had to make sure no compromise ever happened.  

        Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

        by Inland on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 04:35:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're not really thinking, are you? (0+ / 0-)

          The policy of compromise by Lincoln was a dismal failure -- he wasted years of blood and guts because he was trying to play a "compromise" card that wasn't possible.

          The Southerners were exactly correct in their analysis. "Compromise" with the abolition was a slowly painful death of their system. They rolled the dice -- and at points came damn close to winning. They were essentially on the losing side of history, and the only way to go was to refuse to compromise and see if they could cheat history while they still were in a fairly strong position.

          Folks die. Lots and lots of folks die. That's what happens -- no matter how many kumbaya fantasies you try to have. High-minded principles win -- they form history. Some issues are uncompromisable, given that, as Lincoln said, a house divided can not stand.

          There's no half-way point for certain dynamics. For minor issues, sure, compromise is essential. But on major issues it only puts off a problem, causing greater blood-letting. The short-term thinking and cowardice of the FF's on the slavery compromise only lead to the death of many, many more in the long-term. The Southerners would never accept a slow failure of their system -- so the inevitable conflict was simply delayed for more generations of slavery.

          •  Um. No. (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            princss6
            Hidden by:
            RandomSequence

            The policy of not fighting slavery itself is what kept Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and (most of) Missourri in the Union.  You don't know, obviously, but those were slave states.  Compromising on slavery is what made victory possible.  Your heroes in the South, your princpled, admirable people who did the right thing, lost.  Oh, and murdered a bunch of people for the ideal of slavery.

            So it turns out, unbending priciple is not only a bad strategy, but the mindset that puts unbending primciple above all leads to defense of things that a more thinking person would realize are abhorrent.

            I think that you're caught up in your thesis that being a big ucompromising fucker is the way to win. You don't realize that you're making an ass of yourself and showing complete ignorance of history and a rather dismal amoral view towards the destruction that self righteous ideologues brought the country to.

            Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

            by Inland on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 06:57:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Asshole SOB. (0+ / 0-)

              Instead of arguing the point -- you call your opponents pro-slavery.

              What an intellectually dishonest, despicable argumentative tack. Instead of focusing on the question of whether a compromise with slavery made victory possible -- a debatable point -- instead you take the scumbag tactic of implying that your opponent is a slaver.

              What dishonest hackery -- most clearly shown by your self-contradictory propagandization: " rather dismal amoral view towards the destruction that self righteous ideologues brought the country to". Completely self-contradictory and moronic -- either you are "pro" self-righteous, or you are amoral, but not both SIMULTANEOUSLY.

              But say anything you can to win -- and then try to claim the moral high-ground while SIMULTANEOUSLY claiming the pragmatic, amoral high-ground.

              Political writer, maybe? Successful lawyer? Got to be professionally an intellectual mercenary of some kind.

              Let's see -- you are pro-compromise, and NAMBLA is pro political compromise, so it would be perfectly fair for me to say that pedophiles are your heroes, wouldn't it?

              •  I stand by it. (0+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Hidden by:
                RandomSequence

                The people who had the admirable, long term strategy of never compromising were the slave owners. Of course, setting feet in stone and never compromising isn't so great when the marvelous principle you're defending is evil itself.  That's the problem with people who make unbending devotion to principle into a principle.

                Now go fuck yourself.

                Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

                by Inland on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 07:14:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah -- pedophile. (0+ / 0-)

                  The people who have an admirable, long term strategy of compromising are NAMBLA. So go ahead with your child-molestation.

                  You dishonest piece of shit. Really showing what "your kind of people" are, ain't you? Say ANYTHING -- even the most transparently vapid. Very pragmatic of you.

                  You know who else had a policy of "compromise"? Stalin! He believed in Communism within a singe-state. So therefore -- you must be a Stalinist! A pedophilic Stalin-worshipper!

                  What a stain on humanity.

                  •  Eh. I've had people lie about me before. (0+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hidden by:
                    RandomSequence

                    So I'm not going to get all upset about some anonymous fuckwit who thinks anger somehow proves he's correct, just like the slaveowners who felt killing Americans showed admirable princple.  I'll bother to protest my innocence when I'm accused by someone who isn't self evidently a piece of trash.

                    Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

                    by Inland on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 08:10:14 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Pretending to be stupid, scumbag? (0+ / 0-)

                      That you can't understand an analogy -- and what the accusation is, and instead try to counter-accuse the accusation?

                      What a propagandistic coprolite you are. On top of being terrible, terribly uncreative (can't do better than "trash" -- simply repeating noises).

                      Of course, you're not upset -- despite the evidence of your continual responses. Once again -- dishonesty 101.

                      Do you even have a concept of the truth, beyond whatever is pragmatically useful for you?

                      •  Heh. (0+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hidden by:
                        RandomSequence

                        Yeah, I'm just pretending that you're not just using an analogy and I'm just pretending that your  some sort of douchebag who gets his rocks off insulting people on the internet.  Look at me pretend that you're a sack of shit who parachuted into a history discussion thinking that this was a good time for you to scratch a psychic itch you have.

                        I'm doing all that pretending because I'm jealous of how cool you are.

                        Enjoy your ulcer.

                        Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

                        by Inland on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 08:21:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Wow --- and the dishonesty continues. (0+ / 0-)

                          YOU insult ME by calling me 'pro-slavery' -- then ACCUSE ME of getting my rocks off by insulting people!

                          Talk about having no respect for the truth. I'm thinking you must work either for a "thinktank", on capitol hill or in finance.

                          It's hard to find that continuing depth of intellectual bankruptcy outside of those areas. Maybe hedge fund manager?

                          The bonus is the continuing accusations of "anger" -- well-founded anger -- while you're "above the fray". But you don't stop! Dispositive evidence of your complete dishonesty at every level. You can't really bring yourself to do anything but lie, can you?

                          It's a principle with you -- from the GWB school of debate, eh?

              •  Your HRs are outside the rules. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 12:42:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I thought the point of the HRs (0+ / 0-)

                  was to eliminate useless flamage and inflammatory commentary.

                  I don't see much point in them otherwise -- I didn't start the flaming, and I do think that the thread from the point that the flaming started should be pruned.

                  I guess I should be offended if I dishonestly and transparently accuse someone of taking some monstrous position and get HR'd? That we should let the distraction stand?

                  That's practical to know.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site