[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I think it's a very good question. As a far-left president, perhaps it was a compromise, even if it was for Democrats.

Calling the public option: which had majority support in the American populous in 2007 "far" anything is simply prejudicial language.

The man was elected, by a clear majority, on a campaign which had a public option as a major talking point.

It would be like calling support for the wars in 2004 "far right".

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Calling the public option: which had majority support in the American populous in 2007 "far" anything is simply prejudicial language.

The man was elected, by a clear majority, on a campaign which had a public option as a major talking point.

It would be like calling support for the wars in 2004 "far right".

I think I've made my point. If it was a compromise, then why no Republican support? Given the "compromise" did not gain any, why didn't they just put the public option back in?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I think I've made my point. If it was a compromise, then why no Republican support? Given the "compromise" did not gain any, why didn't they just put the public option back in?

He advocated for something. He had resistance that prevented him from getting it. He offered a compromise with some but not all of what he wanted.

You are adding complexity in the hopes of confusing the issue until it is forgotten that your statement was wrong. That rarely works with me.

[Jfool]

I was attempting to discuss the topic.

If you are obsessed with being right all the time, then you end up with a pretty silly "discussion".

[thesteve]

I guess I'm missing your point Jfool. Maybe the compromise didn't gain Republican support, but it gained support for the measure nonetheless. How is that suddenly not a compromise?

I'm sure throughout history, both parties have had plenty of moments where they pandered to their moderate bases instead of sticking with their (perceived) extremes.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I was attempting to discuss the topic.

Oh? Seems to me the topic was the extension of the Bush era tax cuts. I must have missed your on-topicness.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I guess I'm missing your point Jfool. Maybe the compromise didn't gain Republican support, but it gained support for the measure nonetheless. How is that suddenly not a compromise?

I'm sure throughout history, both parties have had plenty of moments where they pandered to their moderate bases instead of sticking with their (perceived) extremes.

Yes, I agree. However, I was thinking of across the aisle versus toward the center. Both are technically a compromise... each of a different degree. But I fear the whole discussion has become a word smith dispute.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Oh? Seems to me the topic was the extension of the Bush era tax cuts. I must have missed your on-topicness.

I was originally attempting to introduce the news that Obama and the GOP had reached an agreement. When I posted, it was news. I thought it was on topic.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I was originally attempting to introduce the news that Obama and the GOP had reached an agreement. When I posted, it was news. I thought it was on topic.

But that's not all you said. You took the opportunity to make an off-topic bash, inferring Obama is rigid and uncompromising. Some days I wish he was... though the truth is that the president doesn't get to vote on legislation, doesn't get to introduce it, doesn't really get more than an honorary say: unless he's willing to veto.

It appears that the left half of congress is unwilling to pass a tax reduction that includes the top 2%, and the right half is unwilling to pass a tax reduction that doesn't include the top 2%. I would say "if there's no common ground then move on", but the right has stated that it will not move on, at least this year, until and unless it gets a tax reduction for the top 2% of incomes.