Ted Cruz is a Nasty Guy. Perfect, right?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

This is actually a pretty solid abbreviation of the average interaction between statists and libertarians.

After your speech and a reasonable pause to allow for applause from the peanut gallery, I would remind you that we are talking about penguins and how they are perfectly happy living in the gully.

I guess I'm not sure why you're talking about penguins when I'm trying to come up with a real life example for you.

In every aspect of my life...Family, Army, Community group, my business, my myriad jobs and careers, board of education, neighbors, students, go workers, and business associates. The core principle is getting things done, finding a problem or something that we can do better and seeing an opportunity and taking advantage. In the Army it was a mission. We might have to get some supplies to another location. I might want to take a road to the east and my peer to the west. We figure it out and compromise.

It's ridiculous to assume that government cannot work that way. Good leaders do work that way. Can't you see that?

Or in your life is it always your way and that's that. You're that powerful and genius that you are always correct and somehow always get everyone to come around to your way of thinking?

In my world, every aspect, I come across people with a differing opinion and view. But somehow, when we talk about what's going on and we both want what's best and we both want to accomplish some goal it gets done. AGain, that's compromise.

a reply to: amazing

In fairness to you, I chose to simplify the example to show the untenability of compromise as a concept.

To clarify the underlying misunderstanding, the example you were using was a real world example of people making decisions about how they will pursue some agreed upon goal, not whether or not to.

I find the presentation of such examples frustrating because, in my opinion, there really are no real world problems that government should attempt to fix. It is entirely outside of their authority and capability.

People solve problems, the state can only create or exacerbate them.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

In fairness to you, I chose to simplify the example to show the untenability of compromise as a concept.

To clarify the underlying misunderstanding, the example you were using was a real world example of people making decisions about how they will pursue some agreed upon goal, not whether or not to.

I find the presentation of such examples frustrating because, in my opinion, there really are no real world problems that government should attempt to fix. It is entirely outside of their authority and capability.

People solve problems, the state can only create or exacerbate them.

I agree with you to an extent. It would be nice to live in a society where we didn't need government, but as a country, we're not there yet and we still have issues that need to be addressed.

We have questions and issues that need to be addressed now like-Taxes, Police and federal Laws, our military, pollution, Immigration, equal rights, education, infrastructure, our military, ISIS and terrorism, our economy, our elderly and disabled, medicaid and medicare, ObamaCare and hundreds of other issues.

Our government has to make decisions on these issues and we need people in government that will work together to get things done. With Compromise.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

In fairness to you, I chose to simplify the example to show the untenability of compromise as a concept.

To clarify the underlying misunderstanding, the example you were using was a real world example of people making decisions about how they will pursue some agreed upon goal, not whether or not to.

I find the presentation of such examples frustrating because, in my opinion, there really are no real world problems that government should attempt to fix. It is entirely outside of their authority and capability.

People solve problems, the state can only create or exacerbate them.

I agree with you to an extent. It would be nice to live in a society where we didn't need government, but as a country, we're not there yet and we still have issues that need to be addressed.

We have questions and issues that need to be addressed now like-Taxes, Police and federal Laws, our military, pollution, Immigration, equal rights, education, infrastructure, our military, ISIS and terrorism, our economy, our elderly and disabled, medicaid and medicare, ObamaCare and hundreds of other issues.

Our government has to make decisions on these issues and we need people in government that will work together to get things done. With Compromise.

With the single exception of the military, none of those things are the responsibility of the federal government. Even the federal police are not constitutional and should be disbanded.

I think it is a mistake to anthropomorphize government. It makes no decisions and executes no agenda, the people who we elect to represent us and mostly those who we didn't elect do. Why not then have those people closer to their electorate if we must have them at all?

This is the basic principal of our federal government and its constitution.

originally posted by: jellyrev
Cruz is not liked because he is not a likable guy. In that debate he was totally unlikable, He was doing a bad trump impression.

In Congress he is not doing the Ron Paul effect, where he just says no to lobbyist, and will not vote against the constitution. Do not kid yourself.

I'm not one to go on feels but that guy even feels like a snake.

I could see in the appeal in Rubio, Kaisch heck even Bush. But cruz is just nasty.

If cruz gets it at least my decision will be easy, Gary Johnson.

Obviously, Johnson is the only choice for the truly principled voter.

However, I thought we were all discussing the possibility of achieving some semblance of repair to our out of control central government by holding our noses and voting R.

So far as I can tell that means Paul, Cruz, Fiorina and maybe Rubio. I am trying to wrap my head around the idea that Kasich or Bush might be an acceptable alternative to Johnson.

Granted, Bush has the best fiscal record but, that really isn't the issue in my mind. The debt problem will begin to fix itself simply but cutting most federal government, something neither of those candidates would ever do in our wildest dreams nor their most terrifying nightmares.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

In fairness to you, I chose to simplify the example to show the untenability of compromise as a concept.

To clarify the underlying misunderstanding, the example you were using was a real world example of people making decisions about how they will pursue some agreed upon goal, not whether or not to.

I find the presentation of such examples frustrating because, in my opinion, there really are no real world problems that government should attempt to fix. It is entirely outside of their authority and capability.

People solve problems, the state can only create or exacerbate them.

I agree with you to an extent. It would be nice to live in a society where we didn't need government, but as a country, we're not there yet and we still have issues that need to be addressed.

We have questions and issues that need to be addressed now like-Taxes, Police and federal Laws, our military, pollution, Immigration, equal rights, education, infrastructure, our military, ISIS and terrorism, our economy, our elderly and disabled, medicaid and medicare, ObamaCare and hundreds of other issues.

Our government has to make decisions on these issues and we need people in government that will work together to get things done. With Compromise.

With the single exception of the military, none of those things are the responsibility of the federal government. Even the federal police are not constitutional and should be disbanded.

I think it is a mistake to anthropomorphize government. It makes no decisions and executes no agenda, the people who we elect to represent us and mostly those who we didn't elect do. Why not then have those people closer to their electorate if we must have them at all?

This is the basic principal of our federal government and its constitution.

Two different discussions then, yeah?

It would be nice to live in a libertarian paradise, but our country isn't set up that way. Not as it is right now.

However, this thread is about the right leaning politicians working with the left leaning politicans. I'm saying they have work together. You're saying they shouldn't?

I'm saying that no matter what happens. Even if a 100 people were stranded on a deserted island for the rest of their lives. There would be some sort of government or community. That's the way us people work. and I'm saying those people better be able to work together or they're going to die out.

a reply to: amazing

51 different discussions actually but, the one that matters to all of us is the one that allows the other 50.

I thought the thread was about what an outcast Cruz is so I have been defending his persona non grata status as unavoidable.

how much more of an oligarchy do we Americans want?....every statistic out there shows that the majority of American assets are owned by the top point-one-percent....to think the bottom 99.9% of Americans have any say in how our economy works is folly at best, and destructive ignorance at the worse.....keep fighting for those scraps, and blaming everyone that does not have economic power.