So, how are things over here in the Talk Radio Support Group?

[dayman]

Many times you bring up this attack on compromise. Read "getting to yes." Get back to me.

[dayman]

In any event...the art of governing necessitates cooperation and negoatiation with the goal of getting things done. You can't let your idea of perfect be the enemy of good. There is no ideology that works at all times...otherwise no serious party would differ on the subject. Building and economy is hard practical work, not a game for ideologes on either side. Most Americans believe that if the government ran everything it would fail. Most Americans also believe that there are functions the government has that do good. On and on...it's public private partnership that works in the most prosperous nations and will continue to for the next century. The debate is what and how. The interests driving either side on many of the individual subjects are usually not diametrically opposed. So long as one side isn't content on "defeating" the other side and convinced they are always right there is comrpomise on most issues that can do good. The idea that "i want to go 70 and you want to go 30 so I give in if it's 60" is not reality. It's nonsense.

Edited September 29, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

Many times you bring up this attack on compromise. Read "getting to yes." Get back to me.

I'm familiar

 

In any event...the art of governing necessitates cooperation and negoatiation with the goal of getting things done. You can't let your idea of perfect be the enemy of good. There is no ideology that works at all times...otherwise no serious party would differ on the subject. Building and economy is hard practical work, not a game for ideologes on either side. Most Americans believe that if the government ran everything it would fail. Most Americans also believe that there are functions the government has that do good. On and on...it's public private partnership that works in the most prosperous nations and will continue to for the next century. The debate is what and how. The interests driving either side on many of the individual subjects are usually not diametrically opposed.So long as one side isn't content on "defeating" the other side and convinced they are always right there is comrpomise on most issues that can do good. The idea that "i want to go 70 and you want to go 30 so I give in if it's 60" is not reality. It's nonsense.

For being so damned artsy you guys aren't very good with figurative expression. Think of it in terms of football. Let's say we run/pass 50/50. I think we should run more, you think we should pass more. We're both trying to work together to create a more productive offense. How do we compromise?

 

Although, in this case you got your way & we now pass 60% of the time & we suck worse. I still think we should be running more than half the time & you think we should pass even more than we're passing now. You insist we pass more than 60% and aren't even open to passing less. How do I compromise?

[dayman]

I'm familiar

 

 

For being so damned artsy you guys aren't very good with figurative expression. Think of it in terms of football. Let's say we run/pass 50/50. I think we should run more, you think we should pass more. We're both trying to work together to create a more productive offense. How do we compromise?

 

Although, in this case you got your way & we now pass 60% of the time & we suck worse. I still think we should be running more than half the time & you think we should pass even more than we're passing now. You insist we pass more than 60% and aren't even open to passing less. How do I compromise?

 

Screen pass. Problem solved.

 

Terrible analogy again. There is no way to come about it...there are ways to come to productive solutions. Perhaps not perfect for any one ideology...but good. And once again...the practical is the real world.

Edited September 29, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

 

Screen pass. Problem solved.

 

Terrible analogy again. There is no way to come about it...there are ways to come to productive solutions. Perhaps not perfect for any one ideology...but good. And once again...the practical is the real world.

Props, that was pretty good.

 

I get your point, the problem is it's not a matter of one extreme or the other but it is a difference in the fundamental approach. If you & I were leading the country I'm not even sure if we could compromise because I would want to back government out of the equation. Not eliminate it's role, just decrease it. You on the other hand think having the government steering the economic ship is the key. And we're a lot more genuine & reasonable than the !@#$s making the decisions and we're a lot smarter than the average voter they have to appease.

 

I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but it's easy to throw around rhetorical terms like compromise in the abstract but when you have views that are diametrically opposed to one another & each side wants to pull in it's own direction, it's not so simple to find a middle ground.

[dayman]

Props, that was pretty good.

 

I get your point, the problem is it's not a matter of one extreme or the other but it is a difference in the fundamental approach. If you & I were leading the country I'm not even sure if we could compromise because I would want to back government out of the equation. Not eliminate it's role, just decrease it. You on the other hand think having the government steering the economic ship is the key. And we're a lot more genuine & reasonable than the !@#$s making the decisions and we're a lot smarter than the average voter they have to appease.

 

I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but it's easy to throw around rhetorical terms like compromise in the abstract but when you have views that are diametrically opposed to one another & each side wants to pull in it's own direction, it's not so simple to find a middle ground.

 

But I understand why you are weary of "government." And I don't want government to "stear the ship" that's just you putting on me what you view as the opposition to your view. We could absolutely compromise. I rambled off a list of some of the issues I'm more interested in and you said yourself you agreed with most of it. Then, as you said, it's a question of how. In other words, what will happen with no action, what could happen with action (good and bad) and what is the proper way to safely incetivize or spur certain things for the national good to move forward while avoiding the pit falls. It's really not as hard as you are making it out to be. And quite frankly, a lot of the liberal and conservative media make it seem like the reasonable people in either parties don't understand this when in fact they do...and it's the politics that don't mesh.

 

I mean just look at what you are saying. I want government to run the ship? No, that's not true at all. You want to scale back government? You want to reform government so it's negative effects are less. When framed as "steer the ship" v. "scale back" it's oppsoite. When framed as "react and help in a smart way" v. "do no harm" it's not. And regardless of what anti-government propenents have told you...the later example is absolutely not opposite...not in any of the most successful examples in modern times looking to rise in the next century and not in our own history. Strong public-private partnetships with good leadership and smart strategy create prosperity. Anti-government philophy does not. Communism does not. This stuff is obvious.

Edited September 29, 2012 by TheNewBills

[OCinBuffalo]

I hope they keep it up right to the election. I can't fathom that they really believe it will discourage the Republican voters.

You know? I'm wasted...on multiple...levels...if you know what I mean....right now.

 

And, amazingly...it's only now...that I pick up on the writing style, words chosen...the message...the theme...of what they are saying.

 

I've trained kids to be objective. Amazing how alteration of your mindset makes things so clear, and how dopey I am for not following my own instruction.

 

After re-reading so many posts in this thread....I now smell fear...and lots of it.

 

:lol:

Oh...you are the prima facie example for this.

 

Seriously....let's put tgreg in charge of a liberal-slanted radio network...

Then...let's put me in charge of a liberal-slanted radio network....

 

 

I guarantee that my network shows stay...both, on the air....and more liberal than yours...while you fail...and try to do the "middle of the road" thing as a last resort

 

That's cause I'm more interested in results....and you're more interested in agenda-driven douchebaggery.

[Max Fischer]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/419556/september-27-2012/-skewed--presidential-polls

[1billsfan]

http://www.colbertna...sidential-polls

 

"Hi I'm Max! I don't listen to those mean meanies Rush or Sean, but I do watch super smart Stephen Colber. If you were smart you'd watch him to because he's smart and witty, and Rush and Sean are just stupid. If you don't like Obama then you are so uncool and stupid."

 

Colber's bit would have been funny if these polls were not in fact heavily skewed in favor Obama. It's a fact, it's not even debatable. It won't be long before we find out who's right, the laughable MSM polls or Rasmussen.

[Doc]

would he have done it if there wasn't something in it for him eg tax liability lessened, gaining votes, supporting his church? we'll never know.

LOL! And you think Barry and his minions would care about the poor if it didn't help them politically? Really?

 

As for Romney, I guess you'd need to see how far back his charitable donations go. And in the end, he's still giving-away $4M in order to save a fraction of that.

[CosmicBills]

Oh...you are the prima facie example for this.

 

Seriously....let's put tgreg in charge of a liberal-slanted radio network...

Then...let's put me in charge of a liberal-slanted radio network....

 

 

I guarantee that my network shows stay...both, on the air....and more liberal than yours...while you fail...and try to do the "middle of the road" thing as a last resort

 

That's cause I'm more interested in results....and you're more interested in agenda-driven douchebaggery.

So, just to make sure I have this right, in this hypothetical world where we're both running a liberal radio station you are proclaiming that you not only run a better network but a network that stays more true to its liberal ideals?

 

Since you're a very vocal conservative, essentially what you are saying is that you're better at selling out your core principles in order to make your business more successful.

 

#Conservativehypocrisyatitsfinest

[DC Tom]

So, just to make sure I have this right, in this hypothetical world where we're both running a liberal radio station you are proclaiming that you not only run a better network but a network that stays more true to its liberal ideals?

 

Since you're a very vocal conservative, essentially what you are saying is that you're better at selling out your core principles in order to make your business more successful.

 

#Conservativehypocrisyatitsfinest

 

That is probably the best beat-down ever administered to OC here.

 

(Primarily because people rarely bother to read his ****. But still...)

[Max Fischer]

 

 

"Hi I'm Max! I don't listen to those mean meanies Rush or Sean, but I do watch super smart Stephen Colber. If you were smart you'd watch him to because he's smart and witty, and Rush and Sean are just stupid. If you don't like Obama then you are so uncool and stupid."

 

Colber's bit would have been funny if these polls were not in fact heavily skewed in favor Obama. It's a fact, it's not even debatable. It won't be long before we find out who's right, the laughable MSM polls or Rasmussen.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Nanker]

I'm shocked. Of course would you consider someone who donates 30% of his income to charity immoral?

You don't get it mezza. It's the government's money, not "his". By giving it away to a 501C3 he's kept it away from the government. Don't worry, no doubt he was equally outraged when her heard Warren Buffett gave $3.27 Billion to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Mark Zuckerberg gave $100 million to the city of Newark, NJ, that George Kaiser gave $96.5 million to HIS FAMILY'S CHARITY, and Terrence & Kim Pegula gave $88 million to Penn State for a NEW SPORTS ARENA last year. He would have equally hated that George Eastman gave $500 million to MIT. You see donations to not-for-profit organizations are evil through and through.

[3rdnlng]

That is probably the best beat-down ever administered to OC here.

 

(Primarily because people rarely bother to read his ****. But still...)

 

 

Don't remember the quote verbatim, but OC was just saying he is good enough to beat Greg with hissins or yourins. Big stretch to call that a beatdown.

Edited September 30, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Rob's House]

But I understand why you are weary of "government." And I don't want government to "stear the ship" that's just you putting on me what you view as the opposition to your view. We could absolutely compromise. I rambled off a list of some of the issues I'm more interested in and you said yourself you agreed with most of it. Then, as you said, it's a question of how. In other words, what will happen with no action, what could happen with action (good and bad) and what is the proper way to safely incetivize or spur certain things for the national good to move forward while avoiding the pit falls. It's really not as hard as you are making it out to be. And quite frankly, a lot of the liberal and conservative media make it seem like the reasonable people in either parties don't understand this when in fact they do...and it's the politics that don't mesh.

 

I mean just look at what you are saying. I want government to run the ship? No, that's not true at all. You want to scale back government? You want to reform government so it's negative effects are less. When framed as "steer the ship" v. "scale back" it's oppsoite. When framed as "react and help in a smart way" v. "do no harm" it's not. And regardless of what anti-government propenents have told you...the later example is absolutely not opposite...not in any of the most successful examples in modern times looking to rise in the next century and not in our own history. Strong public-private partnetships with good leadership and smart strategy create prosperity. Anti-government philophy does not. Communism does not. This stuff is obvious.

Yeah, I get what you're saying; and perhaps I misinterpreted your comments about government's role in the economy in the 21st century. While I'm sure your ideal involves far more intervention than mine I'm sure we could, and I think even have found a few areas we could agree to start on and to the extent that moving on the things we agree on and putting the rest on the back burner could be considered compromise, I could go for that. But I think substantively the reality is closer to a debate between more government and less government.

 

If framed as "Beloved Leader wants this and you guys won't give an inch" you can argue Republican's are the uncompromising "extremists" (I'm sorry, I laugh and sigh at the utter absurdity every time I hear some dickless tool call the current crowd of douche bags comprising the Republican party as right wing extremists [and don't take offense, b/c to my recollection you're not one of them]) But if you frame it from a POV where a reduction in government intervention is an objective the Dems have been staunchly opposed to any compromise. In fact, leading Dems call the very modest cuts the castrati that is the Republican party have mustered up the courage to propose, "extreme".

 

The problem isn't just with the opposition, but also the scope. The modern bi-partisan compromise tends to be something along the lines of "I'll cut spending if you raise taxes". And whatever, that's all fine and dandy, but to me it seems like window dressing for the semi-interested masses. We need massive reductions in spending, a restructured tax code, and regulatory reform on a massive scale, and we're just talking about essentially moving around a few pennies here and there. These proposed changes and solutions remind me of the Eddie Murphy bit about Johnny Carson's wife getting a part time job to throw her $68 in with his $300 million to do her fair share. They sound good in theory when viewed from a certain angle, but at the end of the day they don't accomplish ****. And for failure to shuffle the pennies around we stand here like a bunch of stooges pointing at the other team saying it's their fault for not compromising as though this lack of meaningless compromise is the real hurdle to getting our economic problems resolved.

[CosmicBills]

That is probably the best beat-down ever administered to OC here.

 

(Primarily because people rarely bother to read his ****. But still...)

I'm a glutton for punishment, but that one was set up so perfectly I couldn't resist.

[OCinBuffalo]

So, just to make sure I have this right, in this hypothetical world where we're both running a liberal radio station you are proclaiming that you not only run a better network but a network that stays more true to its liberal ideals?

 

Since you're a very vocal conservative, essentially what you are saying is that you're better at selling out your core principles in order to make your business more successful.

 

#Conservativehypocrisyatitsfinest

If that was the job, and I took the job, yeah, I'd kick your ass. Hint: that's because of you being unable to help yourself, not because of me, and that's the point.

 

Remind me: Where's the hypocrisy...in a hypothetical? Perhaps it's time for both you, and silly Tom, to go look up what hypocrisy and hypothetical mean? Why do I have to help a writer with what words mean?

 

Hypocrisy...is the act of doing one thing and saying another.

Hypothetical...is by definition...not acting, but considering a possible scenario, and often an unlikely one.

 

How can one be a hypocrite...in a hypothetical, if there are no actual actions taken? Yeah, say it again: hypothetical...unmitigated morons.

 

Perhaps....if you say beat down again? Yeah...that will work.

 

Jesus...I was wasted...and this is the best you can do when I am that far behind? Edit: The beat down I took recovering from this weekend...going to the game...and then having to make up the work I missed over the last 3 days...is a real beat down. So, if you were hoping for a beat down for me, rest assured, I got one, but, not from you 2 clowns.

Edited October 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

If that was the job, and I took the job, yeah, I'd kick your ass. Hint: that's because of you being unable to help yourself, not because of me, and that's the point.

That's your point? It certainly wasn't your point in the original post. Why would I be unable to help myself? And what am I unable to help myself with? Is the radio station being invaded by zombies? Are there going to be a lot of tough math questions hurled about in the control room? What exactly would I not be able to help myself do? If this comment was in any way related to the one time I showed up to work without pants on, it was a dare and my boss is a fat liar! Besides, the chicks all laughed when they saw me. Nothing turns a chick on more than laughter, am I right?

 

Remind me: Where's the hypocrisy...in a hypothetical? Perhaps it's time for both you, and silly Tom, to go look up what hypocrisy and hypothetical mean? Why do I have to help a writer with what words mean?

I'm a screenwriter. Not a writer. Screenwriters are the developmentally disabled siblings of writers.

 

Hypocrisy...is the act of doing one thing and saying another.

Hypothetical...is by definition...not acting, but considering a possible scenario, and often an unlikely one.

 

How can one be a hypocrite...in a hypothetical, if there are no actual actions taken? Yeah, say it again: hypothetical...unmitigated morons.

 

Perhaps....if you say beat down again? Yeah...that will work.

 

Jesus...I was wasted...and this is the best you can do when I am that far behind? Edit: The beat down I took recovering from this weekend...going to the game...and then having to make up the work I missed over the last 3 days...is a real beat down. So, if you were hoping for a beat down for me, rest assured, I got one, but, not from you 2 clowns.

You're right, the beat down you were given earlier in this thread is no match for the beat down you just administered to yourself with this train wreck of a post. You, sir, truly are the king of making OCinBUffalo look like an asshat.

[outsidethebox]

 

The real answer is most liberals and conservatives don't think beyond the surface level stereotypes. Even the intelligent one's reach conclusions based on symbolism or wishful thinking and then make excuses for their beliefs, primarily by denigrating those who disagree with them as immoral, then mistake the excuse making, stereotyping, & attacks for critical thinking. Most don't even know they're doing it and when confronted with it, deflect.

 

fixed