The constitution has been referred to as a "bundle of compromises" by scholars for AGES.

[phleshdef]

Some of these compromises were good, some were terrible.

But to pick apart a person for saying "this country was founded on compromise" is disingenious and it also ignores historical fact.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/tp/compromises-of-the-constitutional-convention.htm

Great Compromise
The Articles of Confederation under which America operated from 1781-1787 provided that each state would be represented by one vote in Congress. When changes were being discussed for how states should be represented during the creation of a new Constitution, two plans were pushed forward. The Virginia Plan provided for representation to be based on the population of each state. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan wanted equal representation for every state. The Great Compromise, also called the Connecticut Compromise, combined both plans. It was decided that there would be two chambers in Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate would be based on equal representation and the House would be based on population.

Other compromises were the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Commerce Compromise and how a President is even elected were all results of compromises that took place during our founding. The ones dealing with slavery were utterly terrible, while others are still developments that we hold dear.

[Phx_Dem]

1. Our entire nation is a bundle of compromises, because we never

agree completely on anything. The same goes for every other democratic country in the world.

Compromise is good. It's what keeps nations from going to war, among other things.

[Phx_Dem]

2. delete dupe post

[phleshdef]

3. So, no grand debunking coming my way?

[jpgray]

4. Personally I'm grateful for the sanctimonious purity that gave us the Bill of Rights

I assume you're not, and would have preferred the holdouts caved in on that one? Like this fight it ended in compromise, but that time the purist sanctimony was on the side of the people.

[phleshdef]

5. Snarky cliche BS. Refutes nothing. Next.

[jpgray]

6. I thought you'd appreciate a response in the spirit of your thread

Every collective decision represents a compromise. The trick is to fight to the point where one achieves progress for one's ideals, even while surrendering some of what is desired. Obama's compromise achieves stasis for the people--disasters of the moment are deferred. The GOP's compromise achieves progress for them--the New Deal gets starved a little more.

How does that resemble the Great Compromise, in your view?

[phleshdef]

8. You are inventing arguments I never made to avoid the point I did make.

This thread was obviously written in response to the President's statement that this "country was founded on compromises". Some have attacked his knowledge of history and accused him of making that up. I pointed out that such phrasing has been used as a means to describe the constitution by historians for ages. And then I pointed out compromises that were made in the crafting of the constitution that validate that statement. This is not an argument about the wisdom of any specific compromise. Its a discussion about the validity to the idea that compromise plays a huge role in the events that led to the establishment of this country.

If you want to discuss something differently, you are free to make your own thread.

[jpgray]

10. He cited this to defend his own compromise, inviting us to measure it by our history

I'm pointing out that it doesn't stand up well to the better compromises in our history, and it stands up terribly to the best.

[phleshdef]

12. Again, if you want to change the subject, you are free to make your own thread.

[sammytko]

7. not the people - white males, with property only n/t

[phleshdef]

9. Yea and that was actually what the President was talking about when he made the statement.

He went on to say that he wouldn't even be let through the front door of this country's founding. But they did what was necessary to stabilize a union and then liberty had its way later anyway.

[Union Scribe]

14. So, accept shit now, hope for something better later.

You started this thread admitting some compromises were "terrible". Obama used those to support his own compromise, which while not as evil as accepting the continuation of slavery, isn't so hot either.

Not that it matters, as the existence of the country was not exactly threatened by these tax cut extensions. The entire premise of his comment was absurdly out of proportion.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

18. Instead of slinging insults, read what he said

In the context of talking about compromises at our nation's founding, he clearly referenced his race and how black people were considered less human. What compromise do YOU think that was referring to, if not the 3/5 compromise? Every line I wrote was in direct response to HIS statement, which was specific whether or not you want to accept it.

[phleshdef]

24. He was making a general statement about the idea of compromising.

He didn't say "the founding fathers allowed for slavery and thus its ok for me to allow the rich to keep their tax cut for 2 more years so that I can get middle class relief", which is exactly what you are trying to say he said. I read what he said and I watched him say it. I'm fully capable of using common sense while doing so instead of trying to overanalyze it into something that it wasn't.

[Union Scribe]

32. I don't think it's "overanalyz"ing to connect two immediately adjacent sentences.

You seem to find that unreasonable somehow, which I will now leave you to continue doing to your heart's content.

[jpgray]

13. You have pretty high standards for old-timey compromise

The founders could be expected to overturn millennia of institutional racist and sexist viciousness, to surpass their own rooted bigotry, to sell out their monstrous slaver chums (and selves)? If that's our standard for compromise, then Obama and the Democrats can certainly be expected to pass UI extension without extending tax cuts for the rich, particularly when we have majorities in both houses and the presidency.

[phleshdef]

16. We don't have a big enough willing majority in the Senate to make it happen.

Thats all ready been proven by test votes.

I would challenge you to show me the names and a workable way to get past a filibuster, but that would be unfair to you because you can't show me that.

Learn how to count.

[phleshdef]

11. Furthermore, the original bill of rights was not sanctimonious, nor was it pure.

It was probably the best first step of all the first steps we've taken in this country. But it was and is still just a set of ideas written by flawed men, not a set of stone tablets handed down by some fictional all mighty Captain America Jesus.

[jpgray]

19. Eh, have you -read- the founding fathers?

A more sanctimonious bunch of idealist rabble-rousers would be hard to find. Thomas Paine never struck you as sanctimonious? The Grievances Against King George strike you as an invitation for compromise? Do you know what percentage of Tories we went into revolution with?

It's amusing you see a strong stance on ideals as religious dictum. But I know--either Obama trades away our party's foundations for nonpartisan necessities, or he's a dictator.

[phleshdef]

22. I could make a very huge list of some serious character flaws the "founding fathers" had.

But I'm not gonna even get into that because it will just turn into you accusing me of being down on them and its just not worth the silly argument you will ultimately try to turn it into. I'll just say that I have no interest in allowing my sense of patriotism to turn into religious ferver and thus am not interested in founding father worship.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. The only difference here is one side got EXACTLY what it wanted.

Or are you under the wacky impression that the GOP didn't want to extend unemployment benefits?

A COMPROMISE would have been the across the board tax cut (2% off SS) AND the Business tax break allowing 100% deduction in year 1 (both GOP strong positions) in return for GIVING UP the Tax cuts for the top 2%.

Instead the GOP got ALL OF THEIR TAX BREAKS and get to "blame" the extension of unemployment (which they wanted anyway) on the Dems.

WTG

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. The point of your thread is that this country is built on compromise.

The point of my response is one side getting EVERYTHING IT WANTED and the other side giving up its core principles is NOT COMPROMISE.

[phleshdef]

25. The point of my thread was that its a valid general statement to make.

So attacking the President's reading of history simply for saying something as cliche and seemingly indifferent as "this country was founded on compromise" is petty.

I know what the point of my thread was, I don't need you to reinterpret it back to me, especially when you are going to do it wrong.

I don't agree that the Republicans are getting what they wanted. They wanted permanent tax cuts, no unemployment extension and no continuation of previous Obama tax cuts. We took the test votes that prove that.

[Arkana]

26. We pulled millions of unemployed people out of the gutter just in time for the holidays

and you somehow think this is a BAD thing?

Republicans didn't get everything they wanted. If they had, the UI extension would not have been in the bill.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. Unfortunately, you failed to read.

It seems a typical problem with you.

[phleshdef]

33. You failed to write anything of merit and I've got sensitive eyes.

[Milo_Bloom]

35. No, you just selectively read what you want to.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. The GOP WANTS the UI extension.

That is the biggest joke on Obama. They know what would happen to the economy w/o the UI extension... they just needed someone to "blame" it on.

[phleshdef]

29. Prove it. They have publically opposed it and voted against it.

And almost all of them voted against the past extensions. You have no argument to back that up.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. They have ALWAYS SAID THEY WANTED IT.

The issue they got to stand on was passing it without paying for it,

"News Channel 5 quoted Senator Bob Corker also of Tennessee on the unemployment extension 2010 bill.

“My heart goes out to Americans who are hurting because Washington can’t agree on a way to pay for an extension of unemployment benefits. I voted several times to pass and pay for an extension, but I cannot in good conscience continue voting for bills that aren’t paid for,"

They NEEDED the UI extension and they knew it, but they needed to 'get something' for it. either budget cuts to pay for it... or a TAX CUT for the rich.


So they get what they WANTED... and democrats break a campaign promise.


In short... Obama got played HARD.

[phleshdef]

40. LOL @ trying to use Bob Corker lying his ass off to support your argument.

Okay, so Bob Corker is saying he wants it, but he will vote against it because it isnt paid for, yet he will vote for tax cuts that aren't paid for.

So he is obviously lying his ass off about caring whether or not something is paid for or not. He is giving a false reason to vote against it.

Wow, he must REALLY want it if he is making up shit as a reason not to get it.

That argument isn't flying.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. ALL politicians lie.

the FACT is that the GOP knew they needed the UI extension, since it was holding up what was left of the economy in many of their "safe states".

Obama once claimed he wouldn't sign a health care bill without a public option. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php) So.. Obama was, how did you put it? "lying his ass off".

Why? because they lie... all of them.

Whether the argument flies with you or not doesn't matter. You aren't in the real world on these issues.

The facts are what they are and the GOP got everything they wanted.

[phleshdef]

44. Obama didn't make up a reason to sign a bill without one.

So no, he didn't lie. But he was entirely too sure of himself during the campaign. I knew that when it was happening though.

Obama got a bill without a public option that likely would have saved his mother's life, it definately would have saved her a lot of stress in the last days of it. He doesn't need you or anyone else's approval to justify signing that bill. It barely passed and it was all they were willing to give him. Thats irrefutable. He did the right thing by signing it. Not having enough votes is and always will be a valid reason for taking something with less than what you initially wanted.

Corker on the other hand is claiming he wants something for a reason that isn't valid to him. And thus his statement is not any proof whatsoever that the Republicans wanted an extension. Your argument is less than weak. And its obvious that you can't back up the statement that they wanted with anything solid. Yet, I have actual votes on record and multiple statements they made to the media about it that leans towards the side that they didn't want it. I have weight to my argument, you have none. Thats what this has come down to.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. LMAO! So everyone lies, BUT Obama?

Too bad the facts don't back up your spin.

Remember, they HAD THE VOTES TO PASS THE PUBLIC OPTION IN RECONCILIATION (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation) (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60683-harkin-says-he-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-bill) Wonder why Obama didn't push for it after vowing he wouldn't sign a bill w/o it? (ie, he lied).

The statement I made has been backed up. The fact that you don't like the source is a problem you will have to learn to deal with... like your belief that Obama really wanted that public option, but just didn't have the votes.

[phleshdef]

46. Why didn't any of these Senators get it put into the reconcilation bill then?

If they really had the votes, it would have been in there. And by the way, in your second article, Harkin doesn't say he has the votes, he said he almost does. Nothing in there provides a list of names of the 50 Senators that would sign up for it using reconcilation. Even some that supported a public option didn't support passing it that way.

You prove nothing. And your Corker example was and still is a pathetic attempt to back up your statement that Republicans wanted extend UI. You pulled that out of your ass and anyone paying attention knows it.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. You're funny.

It's only proof when YOU say it is. Quotes that say exactly the opposite of what you said don't matter... it only counts when you personally say so.

What is really funny is that you KNOW it is proof and I am right, but your desire to spin just won't let you admit it.

It's okay. One day we will have a real progressive in office we can ACTUALLY be proud of, instead of just pretending.

[phleshdef]

48. No, its only proof when it actually proves something.

Show me a list of 50-51 Senators that said they would pass the PO through reconcilation.

And then, more importantly, go through the list of the 42 Republicans in the Senate and show me any sizeable number that said they will eventually cave on unemployment, no matter what happens with the tax cut. And be sure to indicate how many times they voted against extensions in the past. After you've done that, THEN amuse me by trying to make this mortally wounded argument that the Republicans secretly wanted the extension. I have the list of those that voted against it all ready and more than once. I'm more than willing to provide it if thats really necessary.

Prove something keyboard warrior. Prove it.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. Why prove AGAIN what has already been proven?

Just to satisfy YOU?

Like I said. We both know the answers here. But, I admire your efforts.

[phleshdef]

51. Provide the names or admit you have no argument.

[Milo_Bloom]

52. The argument was over when I provided the proof.

As I have said several times.. the fact that you don't like it isn't very important.

You aren't signing my checks. You aren't holding my mortgage. You don't control my credit rating.

Basically, you have no authority here to demand anything other than what you have been given.

You don't like it? Get used to disappointment.

Kinda like the disappointment I feel for donating money and time to this weakling of a president.

[phleshdef]

55. Ok, so you don't have any names then. Thats all you had to say.

[Milo_Bloom]

57. Of course I have names.

But, as I said, they aren't needed.

[Arkana]

31. They may get it, but their idiot base doesn't--and they're the ones who cast the votes.

The Palinites are convinced the GOP gave away the store to get the tax cuts, and guess who the guys who nominate the next GOP candidate will be? Yeah.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. The Pailinites are meaningless in this equation.

[Clio the Leo]

54. Then why is Jim Demint pissed?

... if he got what he wanted?

[Milo_Bloom]

58. He isn't.

Isn't political theater fun!

[Arkana]

20. Which it is.

A bicameral legislature? Compromise.

Presidential terms? Compromise--Alexander Hamilton wanted Presidents to be in office for life.

Without the art of compromise this nation wouldn't exist. We'd have died after the Revolution.

[jefferson_dem]

36. Oh please tell me people aren't challenging that statement of fact.

Of course, this nation was built on compromise. I teach it. This is not even a point of debate.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. The point of debate is whether there was any actual compromise here...

... or just capitulation.

[jefferson_dem]

42. Got it. Sure, it's a compromise.

It may not be a "fair" compromise where both sides met in the middle but that doesn't mean there wasn't compromise. The fact that there is an UI extension at all indicates compromise, as does the payroll tax holiday.

Look at it this way: would either of those items have been in the plan IF Repugs controls both chambers and the WH?

I think we'll get a better picture of "no compromise" come the 112th Congress in January, which is apparantly when some here want to push these debate until.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. How is that compromise???

The GOP wanted the UI extension and the Payroll tax holiday is about as GOP as it gets. (a regressive tax cut)

The only thing the GOP "gave up" is spending cuts to pay for the items it already wanted.

[Clio the Leo]

38. We would have had NO union if they hadn't agreed to let the South have slaves....

... and folks want to get upset over a tax cut?

They have no idea.

[zipplewrath]

50. Nor a civil war

The grand compromise on slavery set up the civil war in less than 100 years. It is hard to say where the country goes without that compromise, but it is hard to see it going worse. That was a horrible war, and ultimately led to ANOTHER 100 years of Jim Crow. The lynchings, the rapes, the beatings, all of this was enabled in the long term by that compromise. And when you realize that this same country advanced issues like the trail of tears and Indian wars on the same basic premise, one can begin to wonder if compromising on racial prejudice was worth it.

[Clio the Leo]

53. lol you're now questing the merits of forming the Union?

I've seen it all.

[zipplewrath]

56. Of the grand compromise

Allowing slavery merely set up the civil war. The Treaty of Versailles set up WWII and created Hitler. There were other choices that could have resulted in a country without setting up a country steep in racism.

But if you can see only one possibility, you probably have a future in this administration.

[Bluerthanblue]

59. excellent post-

Our Pres is a constitutional scholar isn't he. K&R