What party opposed the Nazi's? None. You prove my point. Uncompromising policy is a hallmark of one-party autocratic dictatorships, not democracies. OF COURSE!!! Compromise is essential in a democracy. Multiple parties who refuse to give an inch cause democracies to malfunction.
Give me one example that remotely compares with republican intransigence on raising the debt ceiling.
I guess nobody had any real principles and they just wanted to get things done. Why bother opposing nazism, that would just create gridlock.
Do you oppose bad policy or do you oppose gridlock? Surely gridlock would have been good in my nazi example? Don't want to stop progress right, better to compromise and let the nazis build at least a few hundred murder camps? Again, you don't care about actual policy, only compromise of values, because you view compromise as inherently worthwhile.
Can't you see that real point here is whether raising the debt ceiling was a good idea, and that completely determines whether opposing it is a terrific thing or a terrible thing? It's about policy not about gridlock. Gridlock is good if the policy it stops is bad. You act as if legislation has to be pushed and pushed and out politicians must always be doing some new thing, pushin and signing things and more and more policy.
Let me remind you once again that dictatorships versus democracies is apples and oranges. In multiparty systems compromise is essential, do you agree or not. If not WHY? A lie. You have the puerile notion that your particular principles transcend all other values even in the face of contrary principles. Slavishness to principle constitutes intransigence in terms of governing a free nation. It is the hallmark of fascism. Ja, mein fuhrer? As do all reasonable, pragmatic people. Compromise is a virtue essential to legislation and diplomacy in a free society.
A perfect example of slavish devotion to principle in which intransigence causes the country to lose a AAA rating. This had nothing to do with stopping new spending, it only allowed Congress to pay for debts already incurred. There was no question of the US defaulting, every administration has had to do this many times. It was pig-headed, obdurate Tea Party obstructionist behavior which was noted by all observers.
i do not agree. for example, if one party thinks marijuana should be illegal, and the other doesnt, there is no room for compromise. one side overwhelms the other , and thats all there is to it. i want my representatives to stand for what i want them to stand for, and tell eveyrone else to fuck off. if they get overruled, so be it. no compromise. stand for what is right and keep standing for it. part of it is that i am smarter than everyone, but more importantly, i am the only person without any agenda, for instance making myself feel good about myself or caring about god or whatever. this is why my opinions are always superior, in case you were curious.
you act as if reducing spending is not an option. but it is. you can pay plenty of debt by stopping payment to all sorts of wasteful things. the is is the false dichotomy presented by the big government crowd like george bush or red. always pretendig that we have to spend and spend and spend and raise our debt more and more.
