2016 elections - because it's never too early

[merithyn]

For everything?  You should compromise on everything?

Everything that has a compromise, yes. That's their job.

[derspiess]

For everything?  You should compromise on everything?

Everything that has a compromise, yes. That's their job.

So you can't think of any proposed legislation or agenda you would simply want to block altogether?

[merithyn]

For everything?  You should compromise on everything?

Everything that has a compromise, yes. That's their job.

So you can't think of any proposed legislation or agenda you would simply want to block altogether?

Want to do? Absolutely. Would do? Very few.

The only ones that I could see doing that with are those that don't specifically affect day-to-day living, and where the country is roughly split down the middle.

So, for instance, if the country was still split on abortion, I would have no problem obstructing a bill meant to abolish it. That being said, I would still want to work toward a compromise of limiting abortion rather than abolishing it.

On taxing and cutting the budget, though? Yeah, no. Sorry. Find a compromise. Make it work. That's. Your. Job.

[derspiess]

On taxing and cutting the budget, though? Yeah, no. Sorry. Find a compromise. Make it work. That's. Your. Job.

On this I think we pretty much agree.

[merithyn]

On taxing and cutting the budget, though? Yeah, no. Sorry. Find a compromise. Make it work. That's. Your. Job.

On this I think we pretty much agree.

Then I don't really understand your point here:

Yes, because there simply isn't enough obstructionist douchebaggery in Washington as it is.  MOR PLZ

When you disagree with the agenda being pushed, isn't it your moral obligation to obstruct?

[derspiess]

On taxing and cutting the budget, though? Yeah, no. Sorry. Find a compromise. Make it work. That's. Your. Job.

On this I think we pretty much agree.

Then I don't really understand your point here:

Yes, because there simply isn't enough obstructionist douchebaggery in Washington as it is.  MOR PLZ

When you disagree with the agenda being pushed, isn't it your moral obligation to obstruct?

Well it depends on the situation, obviously.  If there was a federal proposal to ban gay marriage across all the states, would you compromise or obstruct?

[merithyn]

Well it depends on the situation, obviously.  If there was a federal proposal to ban gay marriage across all the states, would you compromise or obstruct?

I would compromise. In fact, I would push that all legal binding joinings be considered civil unions and all "marriages" would take place in religious or secular settings that have no bearing on the law.

That way, marriages are still the domain of the churches, and anyone who chose to could legal bind themselves to another consenting adult.

[derspiess]

Well it depends on the situation, obviously.  If there was a federal proposal to ban gay marriage across all the states, would you compromise or obstruct?

I would compromise. In fact, I would push that all legal binding joinings be considered civil unions and all "marriages" would take place in religious or secular settings that have no bearing on the law.

That way, marriages are still the domain of the churches, and anyone who chose to could legal bind themselves to another consenting adult.

  That's not compromise, dear.

[Jacob]

  That's not compromise, dear.

That's absolutely a compromise.

[merithyn]

  That's not compromise, dear.

How so, nancy?

[crazy canuck]

  That's not compromise, dear.

We may have found the problem.  Republicans and their supporters dont know what compromise means.  May also be the root of the gun nut problem.

[Grey Fox]

Well it depends on the situation, obviously.  If there was a federal proposal to ban gay marriage across all the states, would you compromise or obstruct?

I would compromise. In fact, I would push that all legal binding joinings be considered civil unions and all "marriages" would take place in religious or secular settings that have no bearing on the law.

That way, marriages are still the domain of the churches, and anyone who chose to could legal bind themselves to another consenting adult.

  That's not compromise, dear.

What would be a compromise in this case then?

@Meri. I love that idea, so much I've been saying it for years!

[derspiess]

  That's not compromise, dear.

Oh so, nancy?

It's not.  It's changing it into an entirely different issue.  Not one without merit, mind you, just something different.

And you're the only woman I know to be offended by "dear"

[merithyn]

What would be a compromise in this case then?

@Meri. I love that idea, so much I've been saying it for years!

Same here. It's the best compromise there is, as both groups get what they want, and people can shut up about the whole thing.

[merithyn]

It's not.  It's changing it into an entirely different issue.  Not one without merit, mind you, just something different.

No, it's giving both sides what they want. Religious folks want to control what "marriage" is, while gay folks want the legal benefits that come with marriage. So, divorce the term "marriage" from the legal benefits. Give that term back to the churches (and any other group who wishes to use it) while giving the legal benefits to anyone who qualifies under Federal guidelines, ie two consenting adults wishing to legally join their finances from here on out.

And you're the only woman I know to be offended by "dear"

It's condescending.