Consensus in Politics

[InfiniteNow]

Buffy, would you say that compromise is not to be desired? I think Newt did not kill compromise, that was done by his opponents and exists still today.

Oh, so you're saying that there WOULD be compromise if his opponents just agreed with him? Isn't that exactly Buffy's point? :phones:

 

 

[questor]

Infinite, are you arguing this from a position of knowledge? Which articles of the Contract With America do you have problems with? And what would you substitute to make it better?

[Buffy]

Buffy, would you say that compromise is not to be desired?

Its quite desirable! It was standard operating procedure in US Government prior to about 1994, when Newt took over leadership of the Republicans in the House.

I think Newt did not kill compromise, that was done by his opponents and exists still today.

Hmmm. Interesting opinion. Do you have any statements or quotes that support it?

I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics.

(referring to Clinton) If the Soviet empire still existed, I'd be terrified. The fact is, we can afford a fairly ignorant presidency now.

Mr. President, we are going to run you out of town.

The Left tells you about the Constitution every time they want to restrict your rights. If you want to put up a monument to the Ten Commandments, the Left says that’s against the Constitution. As long as the Left dominates, the only time the Constitution is cited is when they are restricting your rights…

Politics and war are remarkably similar situations.

the Democratic Party, frankly, kind of admires American terrorists.

This is a serious, long-term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country....It will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous...I want to suggest to you that we right now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of it it weren’t for the scale of the threat. (Ironically, a speech to an organization dedicated to supporting the First Amendment)

Nor did we on our part do anything to mitigate their determination. On the contrary, we spoke and behaved as if there were little ground on which to build any kind of bipartisan cooperation. Sam Rayburn had famously said that to get along you had to go along. But we were in no mood either to get along or to go along. This principle worked only when people agreed on the basic things, but could not apply in the case of real ideological difference.

It goes on and on.

I knew you would return to make sure we didn't really think you meant what you said above. I was sincere in asking you to describe the components of your optimum society.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt!

 

So, to just pick one of your points, what compromise do you believe is possible on the topic of "Biblical Morality?" Is there room for tolerance of equal rights for homosexuals? Is adultery a crime? (I know Mr. Gingrich would like to make sure we compromise on that one!) Should the law emphasize "an eye for an eye?" Must people who are not Christian just shut up and be quiet about overt support for Christian symbols in our government because this is a "Christian Nation?"

 

These questions are hardly rhetorical, because a very large "Moral Majority" insists that there be no compromise on them.

 

All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these everything is based...Let him who elevates himself above humanity, above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromises, :phones:

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, I assume you disagree with the quotes you posted. I'll give you my take on them.

1. Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics.

I agree. It is readily apparent to me the repubs are a cringing, apathetic group when confronted with the street fighting tactics of the Dems. Example:

Pelosi refuses to let the congress discuss or vote on opening new drilling sites. The Repubs roll over.

2. Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

(referring to Clinton) If the Soviet empire still existed, I'd be terrified. The fact is, we can afford a fairly ignorant presidency now.

I assume this is his opinion of Clinton, to which he was entitled, and which may be held by others. I don't think we should ever have an ignorant president.

3. Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

Mr. President, we are going to run you out of town.

Not a charitable statement, but it doesn't show context.

4.Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

The Left tells you about the Constitution every time they want to restrict your rights. If you want to put up a monument to the Ten Commandments, the Left says that’s against the Constitution. As long as the Left dominates, the only time the Constitution is cited is when they are restricting your rights…

I totally agree

5. Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

Politics and war are remarkably similar situations.

I totally agree. Have you ever seen a better war plan than Obama's?

6. Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

the Democratic Party, frankly, kind of admires American terrorists.

I don't know about the Dem Party, but you don't see conservatives wearing Che Guavara , Bobby Seale, Angela Davis and Black Power tee shirts.

7. Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

This is a serious, long-term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country....It will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous...I want to suggest to you that we right now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of it it weren’t for the scale of the threat. (Ironically, a speech to an organization dedicated to supporting the First Amendment)

This is over the top, but I also think the lax, no security, liberal view invites

terrorism.

8. Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich

Nor did we on our part do anything to mitigate their determination. On the contrary, we spoke and behaved as if there were little ground on which to build any kind of bipartisan cooperation. Sam Rayburn had famously said that to get along you had to go along. But we were in no mood either to get along or to go along. This principle worked only when people agreed on the basic things, but could not apply in the case of real ideological difference

There is no context here, but it does show the need for consensus. The dems define bipartisanship as the Repubs rolling over for the Dem ideas.

 

more later...

[questor]

It's later...

''So, to just pick one of your points, what compromise do you believe is possible on the topic of "Biblical Morality?" Is there room for tolerance of equal rights for homosexuals? Is adultery a crime? (I know Mr. Gingrich would like to make sure we compromise on that one!)''

I think homosexuals should be treated like anyone else, and I think they should behave like anyone else instead of indulging in their ''freak'' show parades, slobbering on each other in public and playing grab-*** at the White House like Degeneres.

 

''Should the law emphasize "an eye for an eye?"

Where have you seen this in the Western world?

 

''Must people who are not Christian just shut up and be quiet about overt support for Christian symbols in our government because this is a "Christian Nation?"

Where do you see these overt supports happening? Do you mean wordage on coins, or the Pledge of Allegiance? The ACLU is actively engaged in destroying all aspects of Christianity aided and abetted by the Dem Party.

It is true we are longer a Christian nation, but I can't look at history and say

we were worse off by being so. Has there ever been a more altruistic or helpful nation in the history of the world that '' Christian'' USA?

Can you give me the advantages of unchecked immigration, or multi-culturalism?

 

''All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these everything is based...Let him who elevates himself above humanity, above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromises,''

I agree with this..

 

Now that I have answered your questions, please answer mine.

How would you describe the society you would most like to live in?

It might help to describe the character traits of the individuals who inhabit that society.

[InfiniteNow]

You are a hateful, ignorant, foolish bigot, questor... and I'll gladly accept the infraction for the pleasure it gives me to tell you this openly.

[questor]

My pleasure....enjoy.

[Zythryn]

I think homosexuals should be treated like anyone else, and I think they should behave like anyone else instead of indulging in their ''freak'' show parades, slobbering on each other in public and playing grab-*** at the White House like Degeneres.

 

Questor, and everyone else, lets focus on just this matter for a moment. I don't want to get distracted with other points until I make sure I understand Questor on this.

 

As I understand your quote above, you don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to participate in a parade?

Or show public displays of affection?

 

If you would be so kind to give a simple 'yes' or 'no' to each of those (with any clarification you wish to add, but the 'yes' or 'no' is the important part) I would appreciate it.

 

Not sure what you are referring to in the last part, any links?

[questor]

Do you see these words on my post?

''As I understand your quote above, you don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to participate in a parade?''

If you don't see these words, why do you proceed to make them up?

I do not enjoy seeing members of either sex or sexual preference parading around half naked, exposing themselves, and performing libidinous acts. If that is your thing, it is not illegal, but I don't have to like it.

You like to ask many questions, let me ask you some;

1. What code of moral behavior do you live by?

2. Do you think there should be any curbs on human behavior?

3. How should the curbs be enforced?

4. Do you enjoy being around public displays of affection?

5. Would you enjoy seeing your parents marching in the San Francisco parade?

[InfiniteNow]

I suppose a simple yes or no was too hard. :)

[Zythryn]

Do you see these words on my post?

''As I understand your quote above, you don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to participate in a parade?''

If you don't see these words, why do you proceed to make them up?

 

No, I didn't. The meaning of your statement was unclear, which is why I rephrased and asked. I aparently misunderstood. So, with that in mind, would you clarify?

What behavior in this parade is not seen in other parades?

 

Let's try to focus on this Questor until I correctly understand what it is you are saying. Once I understand your position I will happily follow you off on any tangents you wish to follow;)

You could make this easier by spelling it out for us. What do you mean by 'indulge' if not 'allow'?

[nutronjon]

The Society I would like to live in would emphasize:

1. Capitalism, I think we have revaluate the value of capitalism.

 

2. Collectivism, unless we have a massive die off, we must give a lot of thought to collectivism

 

3. Larger government to serve the citizen's needs, this is an extremely difficult subject needing careful discussion. The great organizations of Germany which the US adopted are completely impersonal and therefore complete crush individual liberty and power. This is not a good thing.

 

4. Equality of citizens, citizens are not equal. They are equal under the law. The distinction is important.

 

5. Political correctness This comes with education for a technological society and is the enemy of democracy.

 

6. Biblical morality has caused serious social problems, and needs to be replaced with the moral judgment we had when we had liberal education, and up dated with science.

 

7. Self reliance I am a woman. We cared for the children, sick, and elderly and did a lot of socially important volunteer work. As homemakers we met the personal needs of family and friends and this met a very important social need. For the woman to be free to make these social contributions she must be supported. Replacing the traditional woman with paid workers is extremely costly, and the social ramifications are very unpleasant. In general I would say the US is experiencing devaluation of humans.

 

8. Increased government regulation of large corporations again this question requires more thought and decisions shouldn't be made without more discussion.

 

. Hiring and pay raises based solely on merit. This has benefits but also draw backs. It has decreased the importance of relationships and I think this harmful. It has lead to terrible decision making at the bureaucratic level, and this threatens our liberty and freedom. That is easy to say, but not so easy to explain. I became aware of the problem when my grandchildren were made wards of the state, the lack of adequate education for people who make decisions about the lives of children, became a very serous problem in my personal life. Education for technology, has sadly neglected education about being human, and merit based hiring and avancement is part of the problem.

[questor]

Neutronjon, thanks for posting your views. May I ask a few questions on some topics?

''1. 1. Capitalism, I think we have revaluate the value of capitalism.''

Do you have specific complaints about capitalism? Do you have an example of a better economic system?

''4. Equality of citizens, citizens are not equal. They are equal under the law. The distinction is important. ''

Very true and very important. All you need to do is to observe two people

in their daily activities to see they are not equal.

''5. Political correctness This comes with education for a technological society and is the enemy of democracy.''

Political correctness is the enemy of common sense, human nature, and freedom.

''6. Biblical morality has caused serious social problems, and needs to be replaced with the moral judgment we had when we had liberal education, and up dated with science.''

When I say Biblical morality, I refer mainly to the Ten Commandments. Which of these do you disagree with? With what admonishments or moral values would you replace them?

.'' Hiring and pay raises based solely on merit. This has benefits but also draw backs. It has decreased the importance of relationships and I think this harmful. It has lead to terrible decision making at the bureaucratic level, and this threatens our liberty and freedom. That is easy to say, but not so easy to explain. I became aware of the problem when my grandchildren were made wards of the state, the lack of adequate education for people who make decisions about the lives of children, became a very serous problem in my personal life. Education for technology, has sadly neglected education about being human, and merit based hiring and avancement is part of the problem.''

 

The bottom line question here is, Do you believe merit should be the main reason for hiring, keeping and advancing employees? Should a company or school retain those who do not perform well? Should there be tenure for those who do not perform well? Should we encourage people to be the best they can be and reward them the most?

[InfiniteNow]

The bottom line question here is, Do you believe merit should be the main reason for hiring, keeping and advancing employees?

It really depends on the situation. Sometimes, it's about far more than just merit. I have a personal example. I am working on a very large project that crosses many teams and functions. We pulled a woman into our team who was an amazing "individual contributor." She'd proven herself and scored strong on the merit scale. But, you know what? She was corrosive to the groups progress. She was not a team player, she did not "play well with others," and she made things far more complicated than they needed to be. Everyone was frustrated. Nobody wanted to work with her, yet she was in a big position that was very important. Everything fell behind because everyone got so bogged down in fighting with her, and as hard as we all tried to make things better with her... to discuss the issues openly so we could get past it, she never adjusted. She rested on her merit, instead of focussing on the larger picture.

 

You know, she was a great individual contributor, and had a lot of merit. However, she ultimately left the company, and within one week, we were rockin' and rollin'. We've accomplished more in one month without her "individual contributions" than we did during the entire 5 months she was slowing us down. That's just it. If you stop looking at this so myopically, you will realize that in some areas of life it's more about the sum of the parts than the abilities of just one part.

 

So, my point is this. The world is not so black and white, and you are missing reality if you continually try to make it so. It's about more than simple labels, and you'd be wise to realize that simple characteristics never accurately convey the complexity of situations.

 

Just food for thought.

 

 

Should a company or school retain those who do not perform well? Should there be tenure for those who do not perform well?

This is separate from the thrust of my post, but I wanted to respond. Isn't school to help people perform better? Again, here you go with the labels that limit our understanding instead of advancing it. At least you're consistent.

 

I used to rail against bad umpires when I played baseball. They'd make bad calls. My dad taught me that it was okay, as long as they were consistent, because then you could adjust your approach, knowing (for example) that they'd always call strike when the ball was low and away. You're like the umpire, at least in terms of consistency.

 

 

 

Should we encourage people to be the best they can be and reward them the most?

 

One of these days, I sure would like to reward YOU for making an intelligent and well-thought out, supported presentation here. I really would, questor. I'm all about encouragement and reward, but there must be something there to reward. :shrug:

[Zythryn]

Questor, just to reiterate as you may have missed it:

I aparently misunderstood your post and would like to understand your position.

When you said we shouldn't 'indulge homesexuals freak show parade' I asked if you meant "allow".

Aparently not, so I would like to ask for clarification about what you meant by "indulge". And what behavior in the San Francisco Parade you find that shouldn't be 'indulged' when other parades have similar behavior?

[questor]

Zythryn, did you not see the questions I asked you? Do you only ask or do you also answer? Don't expect answers when you don't reciprocate.

[questor]

Infinite, your definition of merit is quite different from mine. In my business, if someone proved to be a detriment to company morale, they were terminated.

There are builders and destroyers. Destroyers have no merit regardless of other abilities.

You said:

''This is separate from the thrust of my post, but I wanted to respond. Isn't school to help people perform better? Again, here you go with the labels that limit our understanding instead of advancing it. At least you're consistent.''

I have no idea what you are talking about in this paragraph.

Infinite, since we do not see eye to eye on anything so far, I would suggest you do not communicate with me anymore. You insulted me a few posts ago and you should have been censured if not banned. If you wish to apologize, I will talk to you, otherwise I will not answer anymore of your comments.