Partisanship is Good.

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
* // Rant *

I get so tired hearing desperate calls for an increase of bipartisanship within our country and our government. Partisanship has for too long been made an ugly word.

We need PRINCIPLES in this country, we need sides that truly BELIEVE in what it is they campaigned on, we need STRONG debate and passionate striving for implementing goals. Partisanship is healthy. Partisanship is GOOD.

It's with bi-partisanship that we get side deals, that we get politicians scratching each others backs... those that profess to be bi-partisan are weak, they have no balls. You should NEVER compromise your principles. YOU NEVER go in a direction that is detrimental to your end goals. YOU DON'T give an inch, YOU DON'T give up. You PUSH and PUSH for what it is that you want, and then you vote, and if you lose, you lose.

We need MORE partisanship in this country, not less.
 
Grind said:
* // Rant *

I get so tired hearing desperate calls for an increase of bipartisanship within our country and our government. Partisanship has for too long been made an ugly word.

We need PRINCIPLES in this country, we need sides that truly BELIEVE in what it is they campaigned on, we need STRONG debate and passionate striving for implementing goals. Partisanship is healthy. Partisanship is GOOD.

It's with bi-partisanship that we get side deals, that we get politicians scratching each others backs... those that profess to be bi-partisan are weak, they have no balls. You should NEVER compromise your principles. YOU NEVER go in a direction that is detrimental to your end goals. YOU DON'T give an inch, YOU DON'T give up. You PUSH and PUSH for what it is that you want, and then you vote, and if you lose, you lose.

We need MORE partisanship in this country, not less.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
We need partisanship and we need partisans....because everyone needs to approach the middle from some direction, from some set of guiding principles.

Good law, however, is written when good and well meaning people from both sides come to the middle with their principles and forge compromise that tries to honor both sets.

I have seen this very process in action at the state level in Maine while I was serving as a legislative aide for Senate and then House democrats. We had our liberal firebrands who stood on the far left ramparts waving the flag of democratic progressive liberalism and they reminded the committee chairs and the floor leaders of where their roots lie. But every committee strived to produce unanimous reports on bills coming to the floor. Every committee needed to shape legislation that both democrats and republicans could live with. Most of the time, they were successful in doing so, and those laws, crafted in that manner, have stood the test of time. Sometimes the issue was too contentious and the majority ended up cramming a divided report bill down the minority's throat. Those laws are not as good in the long run.
 
Grind said:
* // Rant *

I get so tired hearing desperate calls for an increase of bipartisanship within our country and our government. Partisanship has for too long been made an ugly word.

We need PRINCIPLES in this country, we need sides that truly BELIEVE in what it is they campaigned on, we need STRONG debate and passionate striving for implementing goals. Partisanship is healthy. Partisanship is GOOD.

It's with bi-partisanship that we get side deals, that we get politicians scratching each others backs... those that profess to be bi-partisan are weak, they have no balls. You should NEVER compromise your principles. YOU NEVER go in a direction that is detrimental to your end goals. YOU DON'T give an inch, YOU DON'T give up. You PUSH and PUSH for what it is that you want, and then you vote, and if you lose, you lose.

We need MORE partisanship in this country, not less.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you, but only to a certain extent. I do think that if you "never give an inch" you can never accomplish much. Some compromise is necessary in order to legislate, but, on your basic principles, yes, you should fight for them passionately. Too much compromise does result in what you describe. Too little, and you'd never get anything you wanted for the people. That's what I think.
 
Well darla, you are a liberal so a compromise for you is still a win.


A conservative is concerned with preserving the status quo, the default, or zero.

A liberal is concerned with change, that which deviates from the default, or anything greater than zero.

Therefore, any compromise between a liberal and a conservative is always a win for the liberal, because even if they did not move to the degree of which they wished, they still deviated from the norm, little by little.


This is why conservatism at large is a hard won philosophy, it ONLY reacts to change, and that change is liberal policies being set forth.
 
Grind said:
* // Rant *

I get so tired hearing desperate calls for an increase of bipartisanship within our country and our government. Partisanship has for too long been made an ugly word.

We need PRINCIPLES in this country, we need sides that truly BELIEVE in what it is they campaigned on, we need STRONG debate and passionate striving for implementing goals. Partisanship is healthy. Partisanship is GOOD.

It's with bi-partisanship that we get side deals, that we get politicians scratching each others backs... those that profess to be bi-partisan are weak, they have no balls. You should NEVER compromise your principles. YOU NEVER go in a direction that is detrimental to your end goals. YOU DON'T give an inch, YOU DON'T give up. You PUSH and PUSH for what it is that you want, and then you vote, and if you lose, you lose.

We need MORE partisanship in this country, not less.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent as well .., and may I add that I have also come to learn that a divided Government provides us with a well balanced set of checks and balances. Over the past 6 years we got a glimpse into what happens when one party controls everything.. they become arrogant, reckless and power hungry. Things work much better when at least one branch of Government is controlled by the opposite Party, at the very least it serves as a watch dog. To reach compromise on certain things is not so bad.., in fact compromise could lead to a logical conclusion. More times than not the logical conclusion is in agreement with the majority of the populace.. albeit the partisanship of both party's core beliefs is demanded by each base ... which is not neccesarily coveted by the majority of Americans.
When a campaign is taking place... each Party understands that their message is grounded into about 1/3rd of the populace ... with another 1/3 reaching their opponent which leaves 1/3rd to the undecided... the undecided is the group that is likely to benefit from compromise. If you were to poll Americans on Abortion... you would likely find that a majority Americans do not favor Abortions but also do not favor the removal of Roe vrs. Wade. What they do favor is stuck somewhere in the middle not written down anywhere.. Abortion under extenuating circumstances, not Abortion on demand. So a compromise on this issue is likely to serve America in its best interests.... reaching a logical conclusion that benefits the majority.

Now my views arent meant to say that the partisan should work to compomise his PRINCIPLES.. not at all... let natural attrition within the system take palce... because we have a good system in place..as long as one extreme does not gain total power.
 
Grind said:
Well darla, you are a liberal so a compromise for you is still a win.


A conservative is concerned with preserving the status quo, the default, or zero.

A liberal is concerned with change, that which deviates from the default, or anything greater than zero.

Therefore, any compromise between a liberal and a conservative is always a win for the liberal, because even if they did not move to the degree of which they wished, they still deviated from the norm, little by little.


This is why conservatism at large is a hard won philosophy, it ONLY reacts to change, and that change is liberal policies being set forth.
Click to expand...

So if Cons want things to stay the same, why did they cheerlead Bush's war ?
Actually I know why ? They responded to the islamofascist type of fear mongering spewed by the CIC (cons in charge).
 
A conservative is concerned with preserving the status quo, the default, or zero.

Thank you.

I can't tell you how many times Dixie has tried to convince me that all the great social and civil movements of the last one hundred years - from women's sufferage, to the environment - was supposedly led, at least to a large degree, by conservatives interested in social justice.

Its bullshit of course. Virtually all of the social progress in this country has come over the opposition of conservatives fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo.
 
Cypress said:
A conservative is concerned with preserving the status quo, the default, or zero.

Thank you.

I can't tell you how many times Dixie has tried to convince me that all the great social and civil movements of the last one hundred years - from women's sufferage, to the environment - was supposedly led, at least to a large degree, by conservatives interested in social justice.

Its bullshit of course. Virtually all of the social progress in this country has come over the opposition of conservatives fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo.
Click to expand...



Uhmm.. like bringing Social Security into the 21st century or like allowing the working poor to choose the schools they send their children to ....

No sorry ... the modern day liberal has fought against reforming out of date Social Porgrams that are in place. With todays technology we are missing the boat with the potential to streamline many of the Social Programs that are in place and at the very least increase their long term worth. Thats why both you and I are attracted to the Technocrat Politico ....

maybe Conservative and Liberals are both outdated and we need to reform our thinking as to what political bent is actually going to serve us better in this new century.
 
maybe Conservative and Liberals are both outdated and we need to reform our thinking as to what political bent is actually going to serve us better in this new century.
//

You got something there :)
 
Grind said:
Well darla, you are a liberal so a compromise for you is still a win.


A conservative is concerned with preserving the status quo, the default, or zero.

A liberal is concerned with change, that which deviates from the default, or anything greater than zero.

Therefore, any compromise between a liberal and a conservative is always a win for the liberal, because even if they did not move to the degree of which they wished, they still deviated from the norm, little by little.


This is why conservatism at large is a hard won philosophy, it ONLY reacts to change, and that change is liberal policies being set forth.
Click to expand...

I think that might be true, historically speaking. However, this group in power now are revolutionaries. And they are all about change.
 
Partisanship based on principals is one thing and it is a good thing.

Partisanship based on blindly following the leader is a bad thing.
 
Grind said:
Well darla, you are a liberal so a compromise for you is still a win.


A conservative is concerned with preserving the status quo, the default, or zero.

A liberal is concerned with change, that which deviates from the default, or anything greater than zero.

Therefore, any compromise between a liberal and a conservative is always a win for the liberal, because even if they did not move to the degree of which they wished, they still deviated from the norm, little by little.


This is why conservatism at large is a hard won philosophy, it ONLY reacts to change, and that change is liberal policies being set forth.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, I'm suddenly a liberal:

*I think the original diplomatic position taken by the administration after 9/11, was a great change and correct: 'With us or against us', 'harbor and succor terrorists, a state will be considered a terrorist.'

*The Social Security Act was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

This program should be entirely voluntary, if it should survive at all. Currently it's just a pyramid scheme. Do any 'liberals' have plans to change it?
 
Partisanship is good. It helps us spot the assholes and get them out of there.
They are supposed to represent their constituients not their party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top