(November 7, 2014 at 11:45 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, except that unlike you, I remember what the republicans' idea of a compromise was before they controlled both houses. I remember their unwavering demands to be completely catered to at every turn, and that if they didn't get that they'd work to burn down as much of the dems' work as they could, heedless to the cost to the people, all the while couching their refusal to come to a compromise as a... you know, compromise in accusations that Obama just isn't being "reasonable" to their side by not giving them everything they want immediately. I remember the republican side who would rather have the government shut down than do their jobs, and I'm wondering why you think compromise- true compromise and not just your little right wing heart getting everything it wants- will be remotely possible now that those same people have even more power.
The Republican's idea of "bipartisanship" and "compromise" in an image:
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
