Is Compromise the Foundation of the US Constitution?

[video=youtube;JEpz3YPjLLA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpz3YPjLLA[/video]

You know when I became skeptical of this piece?
At 0:01 of the video.American Democracy?
We are and have always been a Republic
When did I decide the guy is manipulating words and view point?
At 2:23 or so.He had it half right.The founding fathers did believe in and encourage an educated electorate.However,unlike how he worded it it was not so "Democracy" could survive,but rather our Republic.
I don't know who that guy is,I don't claim to be highly educated or up to date on who the big players in politics are.But to me and my uneducated ass this guy is a snake in the grass.

Gelcoater said:

You know when I became skeptical of this piece?
At 0:01 of the video.American Democracy?
We are and have always been a Republic
When did I decide the guy is manipulating words and view point?
At 2:23 or so.He had it half right.The founding fathers did believe in and encourage an educated electorate.However,unlike how he worded it it was not so "Democracy" could survive,but rather our Republic.
I don't know who that guy is,I don't claim to be highly educated or up to date on who the big players in politics are.But to me and my uneducated ass this guy is a snake in the grass.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't get to caught up on his terminology, I think you'll find he's pretty smart and a patriot.:thumbup:

Gelcoater said:

You know when I became skeptical of this piece?
At 0:01 of the video.American Democracy?
We are and have always been a Republic
When did I decide the guy is manipulating words and view point?
At 2:23 or so.He had it half right.The founding fathers did believe in and encourage an educated electorate.However,unlike how he worded it it was not so "Democracy" could survive,but rather our Republic.
I don't know who that guy is,I don't claim to be highly educated or up to date on who the big players in politics are.But to me and my uneducated ass this guy is a snake in the grass.

Click to expand...

He was Secretary of Defense under Bush II and then under Obama.

His point, which gets lost in the politics, is that the founding fathers wrote a document where compromise was necessary. Something neither Republican nor Democrats now believe.

530RL said:

He was Secretary of Defense under Bush II and then under Obama.

His point, which gets lost in the politics, is that the founding fathers wrote a document where compromise was necessary. Something neither Republican nor Democrats now believe.

Click to expand...

He stated this weekend on "Disgrace the Nation" that he wouldn't rule out voting for Hillary. :eek

There is no compromising with an idiot RINO that would consider a vote for a pay to play, out of touch, perv protecting, swindling, corrupt piece of shit.

I'll stick to my guns and try to get the nation back on track for future generations. Thanks, but no thanks.

regor said:

He stated this weekend on "Disgrace the Nation" that he wouldn't rule out voting for Hillary. :eek

There is no compromising with an idiot RINO that would consider a vote for a pay to play, out of touch, perv protecting, swindling, corrupt piece of shit.

I'll stick to my guns and try to get the nation back on track for future generations. Thanks, but no thanks.

Click to expand...

I didn't see that, but I might have to rethink my last post.

regor said:

He stated this weekend on "Disgrace the Nation" that he wouldn't rule out voting for Hillary. :eek

There is no compromising with an idiot RINO that would consider a vote for a pay to play, out of touch, perv protecting, swindling, corrupt piece of shit.

I'll stick to my guns and try to get the nation back on track for future generations. Thanks, but no thanks.

Click to expand...

Oh Regor, what color is the sky in that head of yours?

He said that he was not impressed with any of the candidates from either side of the aisle. How you spin that is amazing. Using your logic, he also wouldn't rule out voting for Ru Paul.

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/former-defense-sec-not-impressed-by-2016-field/[/video]

I would have thought you would agree with him, none of the candidates are impressive.

530RL said:

Oh Regor, what color is the sky in that head of yours?

He said that he was not impressed with any of the candidates from either side of the aisle. How you spin that is amazing. Using your logic, he also wouldn't rule out voting for Ru Paul.

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/former-defense-sec-not-impressed-by-2016-field/[/video]

I would have thought you would agree with him, none of the candidates are impressive.

Click to expand...

Clarity is the color 530.

I finally got your ass! God knows I owe you a ton more.

This is the "amazing" one you were looking for, specifically at the end and save your spin BS for someone else.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/robert-gates-clinton-was-good-at-her-job/

regor said:

Clarity is the color 530.

I finally got your ass! God knows I owe you a ton more.

This is the "amazing" one you were looking for, specifically at the end and save your spin BS for someone else.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/robert-gates-clinton-was-good-at-her-job/

Click to expand...

Watch that again. He states she was critical in getting tougher sanctions against Iran, she wanted a larger surge in Afghanistan, her donations are a serious problem and when asked directly if he would support her he chuckled and said, It is a little early and I don't think having a republican support her is helpful.

So please quote where he said he would consider voting for her or stated he would not rule out voting for her? He gave a polite response which was it is a little early to make that decision.

And for the record, i think it is a little early to support you for moderator of a liberal forum.

530RL said:

He was Secretary of Defense under Bush II and then under Obama.

His point, which gets lost in the politics, is that the founding fathers wrote a document where compromise was necessary. Something neither Republican nor Democrats now believe.

Click to expand...

Please,elaborate.
I'm unclear on which part of the document implies compromise is necessary.
Not trying to be a smart ass here,but I'm not seeing it.

Compromise implies I'm willing to give something up in exchange for something.In the case of the constitution I can't think of a single right I am willing to give up?

530RL said:

Watch that again. He states she was critical in getting tougher sanctions against Iran, she wanted a larger surge in Afghanistan, her donations are a serious problem and when asked directly if he would support her he chuckled and said, It is a little early and I don't think having a republican support her is helpful.

So please quote where he said he would consider voting for her or stated he would not rule out voting for her? He gave a polite response which was it is a little early to make that decision.

And for the record, i think it is a little early to support you for moderator of a liberal forum.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He was asked if he would vote for her and gave a typical pussy ass RINO response leaving it up in the air. Like I said, he wouldn't rule out voting for a complete piece of shit, pay to play, scandalous cunt.

RINO bitch!

Are you Socrates errr.........Tom Brown?

Gelcoater said:

Please,elaborate.
I'm unclear on which part of the document implies compromise is necessary.
Not trying to be a smart ass here,but I'm not seeing it.

Compromise implies I'm willing to give something up in exchange for something.In the case of the constitution I can't think of a single right I am willing to give up?

Click to expand...

Maybe the part setting up three equal but separate branches of government and the checks and balances therin?

Sleek-Jet said:

Maybe the part setting up three equal but separate branches of government and the checks and balances therin?

Click to expand...

How is that a compromise?

Sleek-Jet said:

Maybe the part setting up three equal but separate branches of government and the checks and balances therin?

Click to expand...

Gelcoater said:

How is that a compromise?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the theory.

The country can not be governed without compromise, especially among the legislative and executive branches. Neither branch can simply do whatever they want to do.

Even within the legislative branch compromise is necessary with two bodies, one representing the people and the other representing the states.

This shit is burning to the ground, and our elected officials are looking for a "compromise" that involves both throwing gasoline on it, and pulling up a chair to watch it burn.

Compromise only works when idiots aren't involved.

pronstar said:

This shit is burning to the ground, and our elected officials are looking for a "compromise" that involves both throwing gasoline on it, and pulling up a chair to watch it burn.

Compromise only works when idiots aren't involved.

Click to expand...

My personal view is that America is past rational compromise or any viable solution due to the division in america and the lack of respect for others and their views. America has become a country where people just hate other Americans and have no tolerance for a variety of beliefs.

Just read some of the posts in here for proof.

I'm just glad I decided not to have children.

530RL said:

[video=youtube;JEpz3YPjLLA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpz3YPjLLA[/video]

Click to expand...

The US Constitution is the 'skeleton' that supports the 'skin of society and politics', not the other way around . If it were based "on compromise for the sake of compromise", it would have no direction, and would not have lasted so long . With Gate's history and current position, he will not "rock the boat" with any inflammatory words, he will remain 'on the down low', until his next book . Our Constitution, like a 'human skeleton' creates and maintains the 'general shape' of our government body. Just as people cannot 'grow a third arm' where there is no 'skeleton', so should the government be bound by the 'skeleton' the written words of the US Constitution . Amendments are modifications that should never change the basic 'skeleton' of the body . Amendments are like 'breast enhancement', or 'a tummy tuck', changing contours to please the current mores of society and politics, without ever making a change to the basic Constitutional 'skeleton' . It was said here: "Neither branch can do what it wants to do". But that is no longer a fact, what is the President doing with immigration laws, coal production, DOJ over site of Police departments ? Unprecedented 'in your face' over reaching by the Executive branch . Compromise ? Radical Islam, mental cases, angry race based (or race baited) mobs, foreign leaders who call for the death of the USA, US politicos who would give into foreign maniacs just to 'keep the peace' . I call any Obama/Kerry deal with Iran, not as a compromise, but what it is "money for nothing" .

530RL said:

My personal view is that America is past rational compromise or any viable solution due to the division in america and the lack of respect for others and their views. America has become a country where people just hate other Americans and have no tolerance for a variety of beliefs.

Just read some of the posts in here for proof.

Click to expand...

Just like the manner in which Obamacare was past? :thumbsup

530RL said:

I'm just glad I decided not to have children.

Click to expand...

That's too bad 530, you missed out on the greatest joy a human being can possibly experience.

530RL said:

My personal view is that America is past rational compromise or any viable solution due to the division in america and the lack of respect for others and their views. America has become a country where people just hate other Americans and have no tolerance for a variety of beliefs.

Just read some of the posts in here for proof.

I'm just glad I decided not to have children.

Click to expand...

Compromise within the foundation of the Constitution is the goal.

Outside of the principles set forth, compromise becomes a sell out.

I refuse to sell out for a compromise...that's called surrender.

How is the view from the fence these days?

AzGeo said:

It was said here: "Neither branch can do what it wants to do". But that is no longer a fact, what is the President doing with immigration laws, coal production, DOJ over site of Police departments ? Unprecedented 'in your face' over reaching by the Executive branch .

Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about Reagan, the president with the most EO's of any of the last 6 presidents, or maybe Bush II, with the third highest number of EO's?

As a matter of fact, the only president in the last six that has issued fewer EO's than Obama is Bush I and that is only because he only served one term. Obama issued less EO's in one term than Bush I.

So when you say "that is no longer a fact", why did you not criticize Reagan, Bush I and Bush II in your remarks and point out that it was Republicans that paved the way for Obama's over-reaching behavior, unless of course you don't really have a problem with executive over-reach, as long as it is over-reach you agree with?

530RL said:

I assume you are talking about Reagan, the president with the most EO's of any of the last 6 presidents, or maybe Bush II, with the third highest number of EO's?

As a matter of fact, the only president in the last six that has issued fewer EO's than Obama is Bush I and that is only because he only served one term. Obama issued less EO's in one term than Bush I.

So when you say "that is no longer a fact", why did you not criticize Reagan, Bush I and Bush II in your remarks and point out that it was Republicans that paved the way for Obama's over-reaching behavior, unless of course you don't really have a problem with executive over-reach, as long as it is over-reach you agree with?

Click to expand...

Each time those GOP's did EO's, they were legally WITHIN the law, or as in Reagan's case with illegals, CONGRESS approved his actions before he moved . EO's have historically been 'legally applied WITHIN the spirit of a legal statute' . When Obama clearly 'changes the entire direction, purpose, and effect of a law' , he is NOT DOING what other Presidents have historically done . Remember Obama "ordered LEOs to NOT ENFORCE" portions of the immigration laws, TOTALLY ILLEGAL . Change the law, remove the law, but DO NOT ' order selective enforcement', of any law . FUNNY, how Obama lovers can quote verbatim, every thing that any GOP President has ever done in office, that the left does not like, while TOTALLY, BLINDLY omitting the mountains of errors, over reaches, illegal, and un-American BS Obama has done in just the past 6+ years . YOU should teach Obama US history as he continues to NOT LEARN from his own mistakes, every day . So looking at all this from 'your side of the coin', if Reagan and the Bushes did WRONG, you say Obama can do it too ? I find it really ironic that Obama 'willfully refuses to enforce the law', while he pushes his Justice Department (and the ACLU) to go after Arizona's Sherriff Joe, for 'willfully enforcing the law' . Who will prosecute Obama for being the 'Anti-Joe' , if Joe is wrong then so is Obama .

AzGeo said:

Each time those GOP's did EO's, they were legally WITHIN the law, or as in Reagan's case with illegals, CONGRESS approved his actions before he moved . EO's have historically been 'legally applied WITHIN the spirit of a legal statute' . When Obama clearly 'changes the entire direction, purpose, and effect of a law' , he is NOT DOING what other Presidents have historically done . Remember Obama "ordered LEOs to NOT ENFORCE" portions of the immigration laws, TOTALLY ILLEGAL . Change the law, remove the law, but DO NOT ' order selective enforcement', of any law . FUNNY, how Obama lovers can quote verbatim, every thing that any GOP President has ever done in office, that the left does not like, while TOTALLY, BLINDLY omitting the mountains of errors, over reaches, illegal, and un-American BS Obama has done in just the past 6+ years . YOU should teach Obama US history as he continues to NOT LEARN from his own mistakes, every day . So looking at all this from 'your side of the coin', if Reagan and the Bushes did WRONG, you say Obama can do it too ? I find it really ironic that Obama 'willfully refuses to enforce the law', while he pushes his Justice Department (and the ACLU) to go after Arizona's Sherriff Joe, for 'willfully enforcing the law' . Who will prosecute Obama for being the 'Anti-Joe' , if Joe is wrong then so is Obama .

Click to expand...

Your view is that the GOP's did EO's within the spirit of the law or legally within the law and I completely accept that you believe that although in Bush II's case, multiple courts have ruled that many of those violated the constitution. But others do not including the supreme court. The only reason to enter into an EO is when a president can not get congress to give them what they want. When they can not get what they want consistent within the framework of the constitution.

There is at least half of the country that believes that Obama's EO's which are a fraction of Reagan's are within the spirit of the law or legally. i understand that you think they are wrong. But you can not deny that many think they are.

But that is my point. Each side thinks they are right and the other wrong, which is exactly why this country is on the down hill slide.

Your point on hypocrisy is correct. If principles matter, neither side should engage in EO's or breaking the law. That is my position. One should live within the law and constitution, even when they can not get what they want. Neither R's nor D's agree with that in practice.

With respect to Arpaio, I have no problem with him enforcing the laws that exist, all the laws. But there is also no question that he has broken the law with respect to violating the 4th and 5th amendment rights of lawful and legal hispanic citizens. I just wish people would accept that he is just another law breaker and as Joe says, law breakers belong in prison.

530RL said:

I assume you are talking about Reagan, the president with the most EO's of any of the last 6 presidents, or maybe Bush II, with the third highest number of EO's?

As a matter of fact, the only president in the last six that has issued fewer EO's than Obama is Bush I and that is only because he only served one term. Obama issued less EO's in one term than Bush I.

So when you say "that is no longer a fact", why did you not criticize Reagan, Bush I and Bush II in your remarks and point out that it was Republicans that paved the way for Obama's over-reaching behavior, unless of course you don't really have a problem with executive over-reach, as long as it is over-reach you agree with?

Click to expand...

The numbers are irrelevant. The meat of the point is the issues EO was used for and reason EO was used. Abuse is the circumventing of the system on major issues. I'd wager O owns the "abuse" for EO more than any other.

Old Texan said:

The numbers are irrelevant. The meat of the point is the issues EO was used for and reason EO was used. Abuse is the circumventing of the system on major issues. I'd wager O owns the "abuse" for EO more than any other.

Click to expand...

Using EO's is simply going around the constitutional process so I am gonna go with WTG here and say the principle matters. If one is willing to accept Bush II using executive orders to violate everyone's privacy rights and freedoms, they have no principled argument to complain about Obama using EO's to grant amnesty.

I feel that Arpaio is "the target/scapegoat" for all the people who want 'open borders and amnesty for all' . All the people who 'demand that taxpayers save all their kin-folk at all cost' . If "charity begins at home", why are we allowing illegals in and spending all that money on their welfare, when we could be "taking better care of our own citizens with that money" ? (Ferguson) The whole thing is a shame on this country . Today, in our left wing world "Charity begins at the polls and slowly drips down to the illegals", and it will kill this country .

AzGeo said:

I feel that Arpaio is "the target/scapegoat" for all the people who want 'open borders and amnesty for all' . All the people who 'demand that taxpayers save all their kin-folk at all cost' . If "charity begins at home", why are we allowing illegals in and spending all that money on their welfare, when we could be "taking better care of our own citizens with that money" ? (Ferguson) The whole thing is a shame on this country . Today, in our left wing world "Charity begins at the polls and slowly drips down to the illegals", and it will kill this country .

Click to expand...

I don't want amnesty for all.

Arpaio is a target because he repeatedly broke the law. I would think you would want lawbreakers in jail, all of them. :headscratch:

"THE LAW" according to the ACLU, Obama, and Holder, not the US Constitution ........ "It depends on what the TARGETING means when you are TARGETING on law breakers !" If we are going to let everyone into the country, PLEASE post your address, so we can send them all your way, Mr. Obama . OH, OH, my mistake, you are building an even TALLER FENCE around your house you scumbag .

AzGeo said:

"THE LAW" according to the ACLU, Obama, and Holder, not the US Constitution ........ "It depends on what the TARGETING means when you are TARGETING on law breakers !" If we are going to let everyone into the country, PLEASE post your address, so we can send them all your way, Mr. Obama . OH, OH, my mistake, you are building an even TALLER FENCE around your house you scumbag .

Click to expand...

Arpaio has been found in violation of the constitution. Violating the constitutional rights of US citizens, US citizens just like you and I, many of which have served this country.

Violation of the parts we dont like, so it's OK... one should have to prove their eligabililty for the constitution to apply, or at then very least be a person of palor. That really is the decent thing to do.

530RL said:

Arpaio has been found in violation of the constitution. Violating the constitutional rights of US citizens, US citizens just like you and I, many of which have served this country.

Click to expand...

"Stop and Frisk", and good law enforcement . Look what NY has now . I think Joe is currently in court because he willfully 'ignored a court order', not that he has been actually charged and sentenced for anything yet . NO, I'm not "just like you and other US citizens who many may have served this country" . I have no use for people who do not want to speak English, no matter how long they live here . I have no time for 'those who demand' our borders be wide open, if you feel this way take them all to your house . YOU feed and clothe them, and teach them English while you are at it . The "American melting pot" is being destroyed by all the groups that demand the laws 'bend' for their own personal causes, never for the 'good of the country' as a whole . US immigration, is a PROCESS, illegal US immigration, is a CRIME .

Sleek-Jet said:

Violation of the parts we dont like, so it's OK... one should have to prove their eligabililty for the constitution to apply, or at then very least be a person of palor. That really is the decent thing to do.

Click to expand...

Why doesn't Obama ? He claims to be a scholar and mentor of it, yet he tramples it daily .

AzGeo said:

"Stop and Frisk", and good law enforcement . Look what NY has now . I think Joe is currently in court because he willfully 'ignored a court order', not that he has been actually charged and sentenced for anything yet . NO, I'm not "just like you and other US citizens who many may have served this country" . I have no use for people who do not want to speak English, no matter how long they live here . I have no time for 'those who demand' our borders be wide open, if you feel this way take them all to your house . YOU feed and clothe them, and teach them English while you are at it . The "American melting pot" is being destroyed by all the groups that demand the laws 'bend' for their own personal causes, never for the 'good of the country' as a whole . US immigration, is a PROCESS, illegal US immigration, is a CRIME .

Click to expand...

They may call it that in NY, but in America, they call it a violation of a US citizens constitutional rights.

You keep talking about illegal immigration that we all agree is illegal. You fail to address the violation of US citizens rights who are not white.

Why is that?