The Democrats should "tap out" totally on their efforts to destroy the Second Amendment - and in return, the Republicans should "tap out" totally on their efforts to destroy ObamaCare (and Social Security/Medicare in everything but name) and preserve unfair and unnecessary tax loopholes.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The Democrats should "tap out" totally on their efforts to destroy the Second Amendment - and in return, the Republicans should "tap out" totally on their efforts to destroy ObamaCare (and Social Security/Medicare in everything but name) and preserve unfair and unnecessary tax loopholes.

Totally agreed! Let's hope the younger Congress members have better sense than the ones currently leading the howling mobs.

Could we get a more bipolar compromise? Like Republicans promise to shoplift thousands of dollars of merchandise if Democrats threaten their family members with knives and run away?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Totally agreed! Let's hope the younger Congress members have better sense than the ones currently leading the howling mobs.

Totally disagreed. Public safety should not be compromised.

Obamacare is done. Just tell the Republicans to stuff it.

Obama is playing the revenue card. Would giving up on that now be enough to stop the sequester cuts? That's all that matters now.

In any case, we live in a bi-polar country. There is no bargain possible that would end it. Face it folks; one side has to win. This is a 4T. If the 4T is to have a positive outcome, the progressive side will win. That's all there is to it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Totally disagreed. Public safety should not be compromised.

Obamacare is done. Just tell the Republicans to stuff it.

Obama is playing the revenue card. Would giving up on that now be enough to stop the sequester cuts? That's all that matters now.

In any case, we live in a bi-polar country. There is no bargain possible that would end it. Face it folks; one side has to win. This is a 4T. If the 4T is to have a positive outcome, the progressive side will win. That's all there is to it.

But if the progressive side was winning on the social issues, into which gun control vs. gun rights also at least arguably falls, there would be no revenue debate because the Democrats would have a functioning majority; i.e., "218 and 60" - 218 (or more) seats in the House, and 60 (or more) seats in the Senate.

So I blame the damn Satanists - and that's exactly what they are, in that atheism is the gateway to Satanism - for the ongoiing budget impasse.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if the progressive side was winning on the social issues, into which gun control vs. gun rights also at least arguably falls, there would be no revenue debate because the Democrats would have a functioning majority; i.e., "218 and 60" - 218 (or more) seats in the House, and 60 (or more) seats in the Senate.

So I blame the damn Satanists - and that's exactly what they are, in that atheism is the gateway to Satanism - for the ongoiing budget impasse.

You could just as easily argue that their mushiness is the reason Democrats can't govern. I know that I'm less interested in voting for a non-commital mush-mouth than someone who says what she believes and stands firm. I don't think I'm unique in that. Strength attracts followers. Of course, strength focused in the wrong direction repels, so it's risky. On the other hand, being a rug means getting walked on, so that's never viable at all.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You could just as easily argue that their mushiness is the reason Democrats can't govern. I know that I'm less interested in voting for a non-commital mush-mouth than someone who says what she believes and stands firm. I don't think I'm unique in that. Strength attracts followers. Of course, strength focused in the wrong direction repels, so it's risky. On the other hand, being a rug means getting walked on, so that's never viable at all.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, was FDR a "rug"? Yet he knew what to take on, and what not to, in order to hold his governing coalition together.

And "strength" can be asserted without resorting to childish, demeaning name-calling: If you want to support gay rights, up to and including gay marriage, for example, you can plausibly point out that the ancients who wrote the Bible had no conception of homosexuality as a stable condition, also found in myriad animal species; you don't have to revile the other side as "Neanderthals," "idiots," members of the "flat earth society," etc.

Allegedly Obama is currently begging the Republicans to let him make our earned benefits such as FICA funds safe for later Wall Street exploitation.
As long as such double dealing is even plausible the Democrats are not going to be able to gain the trust of their base to make any deals.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if the progressive side was winning on the social issues, into which gun control vs. gun rights also at least arguably falls, there would be no revenue debate because the Democrats would have a functioning majority; i.e., "218 and 60" - 218 (or more) seats in the House, and 60 (or more) seats in the Senate.

So I blame the damn Satanists - and that's exactly what they are, in that atheism is the gateway to Satanism - for the ongoiing budget impasse.

Of course, the Democrats need to win, and therefore that includes on the social issues, and the gun issue. One side needs to win; period and end of story.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

you don't have to revile the other side as "Neanderthals," "idiots," members of the "flat earth society," etc.

It's alright with me if Democrats and progressives don't do that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course, the Democrats need to win, and therefore that includes on the social issues, and the gun issue. One side needs to win; period and end of story.

Like the progressive side really "won" on Jim Crow in the last 4T.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Like the progressive side really "won" on Jim Crow in the last 4T.

Truth be told -- the heirs of the Confederacy would have sold out to Satan -- excuse me, Hitler, who was even worse -- if they had been challenged on white supremacy. Hitler would have gladly restored slavery in the South if Southerners would have given him the chance to exterminate the Jews.

Timing is almost everything for the success of causes.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Allegedly Obama is currently begging the Republicans to let him make our earned benefits such as FICA funds safe for later Wall Street exploitation.
As long as such double dealing is even plausible the Democrats are not going to be able to gain the trust of their base to make any deals.

Democrats have moved to the right. Why should they gain the trust of progressives when they act like Republicans? Most of what I hear out of Washington is a call for cuts and more cuts. Not for the bloated military or a reigning in of the 1%, just for shouldering the balance of the budget on the backs of everyday kind of people. Only a handful of Democrats and an Independent are brave enough to stand at the podium and tell the truth about how the proposed cuts/austerity, on the backs of the citizens, are immoral.

FDR said:

"The true conservative seeks to protect the system of private property and free enterprise by correcting such injustices and inequalities as arise from it. The most serious threat to our institutions comes from those who refuse to face the need for change. Liberalism becomes the protection for the far-sighted conservative."- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936.

Both parties have become far-sighted, which leaves "We the People" unprotected. `Until we realize that fact, we will continue to give our well being and future to the misguided and purchased politicians. All for the sake of our loyalty to a party instead of for a justice for all.

None are so blind as those who will not see. It is only prudent and smart to not trust a politician who has edged over to the dark side.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Like the progressive side really "won" on Jim Crow in the last 4T.

Yes it did win the civil war, and slavery was abolished; but it took another 100 years to make further progress. There will be unfinished business from this 4T, bet on it. One side, the progressive side, will win in the 4T; bet on it. Hybrids will not prevail, whether they be libertarians, or the so-called more pro-government "populists" such as yourself and Cynic 68.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Democrats have moved to the right. Why should they gain the trust of progressives when they act like Republicans? Most of what I hear out of Washington is a call for cuts and more cuts. Not for the bloated military or a reigning in of the 1%, just for shouldering the balance of the budget on the backs of everyday kind of people. Only a handful of Democrats and an Independent are brave enough to stand at the podium and tell the truth about how the proposed cuts/austerity, on the backs of the citizens, are immoral.

It is gamesmanship. It smokes out the extremists and exposes them so that they can be defeated in the next election. Many Republicans who represent an R+3 district yet act as if they represent R+40 districts as carpetbaggers for out-of-district interests are one strong Democratic challenger away from having to find honest work in 2015. The Republican Party has become a semi-fascist Party that does what such Parties ordinarily do; they enforce Commie-style lockstep among their own on behalf of a reactionary agenda. We are still in a Winter of Discontent, and it won't be over until America returns to the old and honorable norms of compromise and consensus-building. Until then we are mired in mutual vilification capable only of gridlock.

Bad as gridlock is, I can think of worse: lockstep in the service of a bad ideology.

FDR said:

"The true conservative seeks to protect the system of private property and free enterprise by correcting such injustices and inequalities as arise from it. The most serious threat to our institutions comes from those who refuse to face the need for change. Liberalism becomes the protection for the far-sighted conservative."- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936.

Both parties have become far-sighted, which leaves "We the People" unprotected. `Until we realize that fact, we will continue to give our well being and future to the misguided and purchased politicians. All for the sake of our loyalty to a party instead of for a justice for all.

Some are more benign than the others. Example: every Republican member of the House voted against an increase in the federal minimum wage. That is Party loyalty. One Party clearly stands entirely for the super-rich on economic issues irrespective of the human costs.

None are so blind as those who will not see. It is only prudent and smart to not trust a politician who has edged over to the dark side.

So which is better? An unreachable ideal that one seeks at the expense of the reachable, or an attempt to drive more people into severe want under the lash?

A bipolar compromise between the two parties while desirable, is nothing but a pipe dream, especially with today's gop. Neither of the two existing parties are currently able to provide a positive agenda for the citizenry. Only Restorationism, with its appeal to communal spirituality,the idea a society of friends and countrymen working together, and finally the emphasis on equality of opportunity and a new elite whose's power is based on merit and participation in meritocratic achievements, is up to the task. The meritocratic elite will be a caste of men and women who would have proven their right to rule. Quality education would be made available for all, children would be taught not only traditional subjects such as reading, math, science, history, language, etc, but also practical technical skills as well as ready made emergency and survival skills. Coordination and strengthening of the education system would be placed under the direction of the military. Technical and vocational schools would be opened for all, largely to correct the problem of students completing their education but finding no jobs available that are designed for them. Education would be multifaceted and worldly, but also must be advanced with a keen eye toward teaching children to distinguished between those in the world who are good and generous on one hand and those who are evil and cruel on the other hand. Children would also be taught to distinguish betwen the redeemable and the irredeemable. Economically, outsourcing would be ended and corporations forced to hire american workers on pain of treason charges. Reindustrialization would commence and then be stepped up. The military would be expanded to a standing army of 10 million troops, with the navy, air force and marine corps having 2.5 million troops each. Another 20 million troops would be trained as a ready reserve. The nuclear arsenal would be boosted back to and over cold war levels of roughly 40000 warheads. Regarding foreign policy america should seek first a delienation of spheres of influence with russia, china and europe. America should also seek an anglophone union with britain, canada, australia, and new zealand and other nations. This would be followed by the conquest and vassalization of latin america followed by the "general pacification in the middle east". With regards to how the pacification of the middle east would be carried out, this would be carried out by the wholesale purging of the islamic cleric classes that are prevalent in the mideast, this would be like a doctor when he performs surgery using his scalpal. Although there are a minority of clerics who oppose islamist terrorism, the history of the past 35 years has shown that genuine long term peace in the mideast would be possible only if their is a surgical removal of the terrorist support bases, at least as it is currently constituted, the islamic cleric caste must be eliminated. The middle east would be reorganized into military administrative regions, and admininstrative centers and other settlement cities would be built and populated by american, canadian, latin american, israeli settlers and even some indian and african settlers. Although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor.

But haven't the last two turnings combined to form a grand era of bi-polar compromise, with conservatives getting pretty much everything they want on the economic front, while liberals have gotten pretty much everything they have wanted on the cultural front?

We've done it before. So why can't we do it again - this time the other way around, which is not only called for given actual present conditions, but by the saeculum as well?

And it's just a fact that liberals are better at doing certain things for society (i.e., protecting Americans from abstract dangers like economic downturns, sudden illnesses, etc.), while conservatives are better at certain other things (I.e., protecting Americans from human enemies, both at home - crime, etc. - and abroad - hostile countries espousing dangerous and alien, totalitarian ideologies).

So what is needed is to take the best from both - rather than a mere, difference-splitting "moderation."

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

So what is needed is to take the best from both - rather than a mere, difference-splitting "moderation."

But difference splitting "moderation" as has developed since the culture war era began is exactly what the elite, knowingly or unknowingly, wants.
Consider that many of our conservative posters such as JPT call the elite liberal because many of them support so called progressivism in the forms of gay marriage and abortion rights. And all the while many in our elite would be just fine with Dickensonian levels of wealth inequality an its resultant nasty, brutish and short lifespan for many.

I guess my point is that it is not really brave for so called establishment individuals to support cultural liberalism because many of them personally benefit from it. The elite is urban and culturally diverse. Issues like gay marriage and abortion rights make their lives, or at least the lives of those that they personally care about, better.
OTOH, minimum wage laws or anything that smacks helping the underclass does nothing for them personally. This is one reason why well paid establishment apologists like Dean Keller argue for cutting Social Security and other benefit programs that he and his ilk really don't need while touting themselves as being great liberals because the formerly culturally marginailzed friends that they have have been mainstreamed.
That's what passes for progress in today's America.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So which is better? An unreachable ideal that one seeks at the expense of the reachable, or an attempt to drive more people into severe want under the lash?

So you think that since the Republicans have gone extreme right, we should follow to get a deal? Not to mention that the *deal* is mainly on the backs of the middle class and poor. Where is the shared sacrifice that we hear so much about?

If what you say is true about gamemanship, then We the People are the losers in this pathetic game. I just don't buy the idea that it is worth becoming a right wing nut to be able to play with the extreme right wing nuts. That's like saying that they have to be abusive to win with the abusers.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And it's just a fact that liberals are better at doing certain things for society (i.e., protecting Americans from abstract dangers like economic downturns, sudden illnesses, etc.), while conservatives are better at certain other things (I.e., protecting Americans from human enemies, both at home - crime, etc. - and abroad - hostile countries espousing dangerous and alien, totalitarian ideologies).

Oh, I don't know, it appears that the staus quo liberals are doing a pretty good job of protecting us from boogeymen and those weapons of mass destruction. Those are the makers of really good fear based agendas to keep the masses in line. Heck, liberals even see kill lists, collateral damage by drones, and murder without due process as acceptable. Especially if a Democrat is saying it's OK. Although it's a whole other story if a Republican was doing the same.

The two parties have aligned in many areas. They both think that banks are too big to fail, policing the world is our job, over bloated military budgets are swell, Israel deserves billions of our money, and oh so many other nifty policies.

So you see, the two sides actually do agree on so much. It's just that they want the public to think they are dramatically different.

Here's a pie chart of what Democrats and Republicans did and do agree upon. See, the two sides can be agreement.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Here's a pie chart of what Democrats and Republicans agree on. See, the two sides can be agreement.

I don't think Democrats and Republicans agree on much of that. Democrats want the red parts smaller. Of course, it depends on which Democrats you are talking about. The Republicans on the other hand all think alike, and they want the green parts even smaller.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think Democrats and Republicans agree on much of that. Democrats want the red parts smaller. Of course, it depends on which Democrats you are talking about. The Republicans on the other hand all think alike, and they want the green parts even smaller.

Eric, I can find links that prove the numerous times Obama has said that he will make sure that we continue to have the largest and best military in the world. It is this continuation of war on terror that Bush started and this president expanded.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But haven't the last two turnings combined to form a grand era of bi-polar compromise, with conservatives getting pretty much everything they want on the economic front, while liberals have gotten pretty much everything they have wanted on the cultural front?

We've done it before. So why can't we do it again - this time the other way around, which is not only called for given actual present conditions, but by the saeculum as well?

And it's just a fact that liberals are better at doing certain things for society (i.e., protecting Americans from abstract dangers like economic downturns, sudden illnesses, etc.), while conservatives are better at certain other things (I.e., protecting Americans from human enemies, both at home - crime, etc. - and abroad - hostile countries espousing dangerous and alien, totalitarian ideologies).

So what is needed is to take the best from both - rather than a mere, difference-splitting "moderation."

That might be cool for short-term compromises, if such can be found that is not unacceptable. Maybe. But in the long-run, there is no "best from both." It is a choice between the best and the worst, and we must make the choice.

Speaking of the last two saecula, the liberals got some partial social victories on the social front in the civil war (the end of slavery), and since "liberal" then meant what "conservative" means now, yes the "liberals" also got what they wanted on the economic front-- namely rampant capitalist exploitation and expansion without restraint, and with government subsidies.

But civilization shifted in the 1890s, and politics did too. So in the next 4T, "liberal" meant something else. It was the liberals who got many economic reforms in the New Deal. Virtually no "cultural" reforms were made; conservatives got what they wanted culturally; the status quo in race and gender relations. Then came WWII, and through the first turning of our saeculum, agreement existed to 1) maintain the liberal economic New Deal reforms, 2) the conservative culture, and 3) unchecked, excessive militarism, a nuclear arms race, and needless wars to keep our "enemies" at bay. That was the last bi-polar compromise that existed.

But the needless, catastrophic misadventure and quagmire in Vietnam ruptured agreement in that field. Liberation movements also ruptured the culture at the same time. In the 60s, liberals made some temporary gains in the Great Society. But the counter-awakening in the late 70s and early 80s reversed or stalled many of the Great Society gains in such fields as the war on poverty, consumer protection and environmental restoration. So economic agreement ruptured too. A huge opposition to cultural liberation began then, and militarism was put back in the saddle in the White House at the same time.

So in the last two turnings, there has been no "grand-era of bi-polar compromise" at all. I have no idea what you mean. Americans have been at odds over the post-war and cold-war militarism; the War in Iraq for example was approved by only a few votes, and over the objection of mass-protests before and after it was needlessly started. The Gulf War before that was also massively protested, and the vote was also close. Liberals on one side and conservatives on the other on that one. No compromise. Reaganomics has stalled all the liberal economic reforms, and allowed the wealthy to regain their power and unequal status, as fully as if the New Deal had never occurred. Liberals have continued to oppose this. Liberals on one side and conservatives on the other on that one too. No compromise. Cultural liberation has continued, but the religious right has resisted and mobilized their forces to win many elections and reverse some liberalization in some states. Liberals on one side and conservatives on the other on that one too. No compromise.

So now we are in the 4T. Now is the time for decision, not for compromise. So which side are you on? Unnecessary militarism, inequality, and traditional cultural oppression? Or peace, equality and brother-sisterhood? You Choose. There is no "best of both." There is only a best and a worst.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Eric, I can find links that prove the numerous times Obama has said that he will make sure that we continue to have the largest and best military in the world. It is this continuation of war on terror that Bush started and this president expanded.

He has also said that he wants to reduce those things. A president can only do what he can, given the opinion of the people and whom they put in congress whom he has to deal with. It is up to the people to decide our course.