difference between conservatives and democrats

Virtues are as applicable to a democratic government as they are to our personal lives. I don't see why they should have different standards.

Compromise is not a virtue because there are times when it should not be used. Should we have been compromising with those who wished to prolong slavery? With those who wished to prolong segregation? To say "I am a compromising person" is to say nothing without giving the qualifier: What do you compromise on? Should we compromise on economics? Okay, sure. Should we compromise on economics to the extent that we turn the nation into a complete command economy? Of course not. At that point you have to dig in your heels and hold to your convictions.

When you believe something is evil or absolutely wrong, you are right not to compromise with it. Even if someone is wrong in their convictions, I admire them for holding to them in error rather than compromising under the fallacy that all views are equally valid.

 

I understand what you are saying as it pertains to deep personal convictions and I agree that there are issues that one's moral or religious compass does not allow room for compromise. That being said, each of us has a vested interest in reaching a non-ideological, common sense agreement to balance our federal budget and start paying down our debt.

 

Agreed. Problem is, not one agrees on what non-ideological, common sense agreements are.

This is why I love governmental gridlock. If I thought the republicans would take both houses of congress, I'd vote for Obama and donate every penny I have to him.

 

I agree that divided government is better than any one party controlling the house, senate and white house. Gridlock is okay for a while as long as the end result is something productive. I am starting to hear rumblings, especially from the Senate, that our current gridlock may be short lived because many of the respective party leaders in the Senate are starting to express some willingness to concede certain parts of their platform in order to achieve the goal of a comprehensive debt reduction plan. I doubt this will happen until the election is over.

 

in the town i work in it's controlled by democrats. their solution to everything is promise more and raise taxes. in the last 10 years almost 10,000 people have left the county because of this. the more taxpayers that leave the more taxes get raised. even the largest industry in the county has left because the city board would not make staying here, as opposed to going somewhere else , more inviting.

 

Except when health care is forced through right..

 

please explain further.....I am not following you here

 

Well I know that you clearly support Obama care from past discussions, with that, you just said you think a bipartisan congress etc is better. Though, that’s not what Obama care was, was it.

It was forced through and wasn’t even read.

 

The Affordable Care Act was passed along party lines in the House and Senate primarily because the Republicans refused to participate in the process and it wasn't like Olive branches were never extended. Obama even met with House Republicans to get their input on health care and they refused to cooperate or inject their ideas.

I do believe that divided government serves the interests of the American people best, so long as both parties are honest brokers along the path to compromise. We talk a lot about the 90's on this forum and, in spite of their differences, Clinton and the Republican congress did some great things economically that benefited the entire country.

That was a nice attempt to ensnare me into your twisted language by insinuating that I couldn't be for divided government and still support the ACA.

 

It was not an attempt, but rather proof of your views.

What the Democrats did is no different than not a single Democrat signing on to Republican ideas, the only difference? The Republicans aren't in charge.

Obama has made and will continue to make ultimatums.

Nice attempt to point the finger and divert again.