Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (552207)	3/1/2010 5:21:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572507

To negotiate with your opponent, you have to believe they are negotiating in good faith. This is debate not a negotiation. We can't really decide these issues, so we aren't negotiating them. No agreement between us (or between you and CATO, or Heritage, or the National Review or some other conservative or libertarian source) would effect the actual political situation. And they mostly are arguing in good faith, just based on ideas you consider wrong, or in some cases even ridiculous. Rs have a history of not negotiating in good faith Not a negoatiation - And no more than Democrats. Also neither group is monolithic. If a specific arguer or argument (or to the extent it actually occurs, a negotiation) is in bad faith, than refrain from engaging then, but blanket statements like "Republicans (or conservatives, or libertarians, or Democrats, or liberals) don't negotiate or argue in good faith are silly. Refusing to work with your opponents and achieving your opponents agenda is not the same as a flat refusal to work together on major issues. That's not what has been done. No that's exactly what was done. Universal coverage is a primarily Democratic objective. A larger federal role in health care is also a primarily Democratic objective. Higher taxes are primarily a Dem thing as well. The GOP talking points where mostly either ignored or rejected. If they gave a nod to one or two of them that hardly makes for a real consensus position that now the Republicans are backing away from because of partisan spite. 3 - Who's this entity your talking about? If you want to not trust Graham that's one thing, but what does that have to do with CATO (who would like to close Gitmo, unlike Graham), or Heritage, or the National Review, or some business's editorial, etc. You casually dismiss ideas and arguments from any source your aren't in ideological agreement with. The entity is the GOP. You apply the idea to sources far beyond the Republican party. You apply it to almost any conservative or libertarian source.