One party's fingerprints are everywhere in America's pain - Guess which one ...

       Using "big words" to try and justify a lie does not change the lie. 

PJ and Lewis both immediately gravitated to the "our side is better than your side " mantle regarding compromise and or 'common ground'. That was not my contention or point and I did not infer that conservatives were more apt to compromise than liberals did I? No. Unwittingly you both demonstrated the approximate mindset of non-compromise with your arguments. 

PJ yeah I'm sure we've argued about this previously but neither obviously made much progress. That's OK...it's a reasonable argument and worthy of debate. 

I'll concede wholeheartedly that in general conservatives are routinely more rigid in their thinking, more apt to be change resistant, and more apt to view the world in black and white terms than the average liberal / Dem. None of those conservative predispositions are conducive to an environment of compromise and the people's interests are not served as well as they might be if that wasn't the case. But you guys go ahead and cast the first stones. Just assume that your sides members aren't a part of the problem. All these people are human ; we're all flawed in some fashion. One of the most common flaws regardless of political persuasion is self-interest. I want what I want when I want it.  

The Tip Oneill / Ronald Reagan relationship of give and take was unique but they solved problems that would have been unsolvable otherwise. Another historical example of an ' across party lines' mentality was that of R Senator Everett Dirksen who spent a 30+ year career in the House and Senate (1930's to 1960's) . He supported many liberal / Dem policies and demonstrated a willingness to solve problems by reaching across the proverbial aisle. I suspect his constituency reelected him multiple times partially due to his willingness to compromise. He was quoted as saying " I'm a man of fixed and unbending principles and one of my main principles is flexibility". Clinton compromised with Gingrich during his term/s and this eventually led to the last incidences of a balanced budget in this country. . None of these three boringly historical examples of 'common ground'  have much to do with the price of turnips or necessarily current relevancy; it's a different time obviously. But that fact doesn't detract from the appeal and demonstrates what can be accomplished with give and take in a legislative environment. 

You'll have a difficult time convincing me that either current legislative faction (R & D) are willing to compromise. Their respective party leaders demand and encourage a hard-line approach to toe their lines. The underlings face multiple consequences for wavering, too. Things like campaign funding distributions, etc? 

Kevin forayed into a semantical  dissertaion on the meaning of common ground; a bafflegab treatise on his being an analogous "proponent of gravity" and " none of that stupid fucking common ground stuff",etc. The truth is and was that he knew exactly what I meant and inferred when using the phrase; and then he proceeded to write a Hollywood-esque screenplay act on it.  It's a cliche phrase, sure..old, worn out, corny. But it's intended meaning / use and subsequent appeal from my perspective was beyond obvious. I surmise that he was just angry because I made a comment that he seldom if ever demonstrates a tendency to get involved with common ground. I dropped something in his oatmeal that his olfactory cues disliked. Sorry. 

Just like Miller, when you've lost an argument, you devolve to insults. That's SO weak 

You, perhaps unwittingly, have reinforced my point. The two parties are NOT equally to blame for the current impasses. Republicans/conservatives/MAGA are and have been historically and ideologically resistant to change: that's pretty much what conservatism means. But it's only recently that the party has morphed that philosophy into "Compromise is weakness." 

Your snide remark about my attitude re common ground was meant solely to annoy me, and I know you didn't even mean it to be true--you just wanted to be insulting. I'm sorry, but I know you're not an idiot, like Tom, or a bloviator hiding in his mommy's basement, like Miller. Thus, I know that youre aware that I've expressed concerns regarding all of the common ground issues that I listed in my post that you sneered at. All of the hurtful things that Trump has done affect "my side" and "your side" equally. Therefore, both sides should be concerned and should cooperate to stop him--right?

If you want to discuss this and other topics without being a snide little prick, I welcome that, as MAGA as you may be. But if I want baseless, pointless exchange of insults, we already have Millerpig for that. You seem willing to afford PJ some respect and even to concede his point to some degree. You can decide whether or not to do the same with me. If you want to "defend" and "justify" your behavior toward me, well then, fine, that's your call. 

So whether we interact with courtesy or a la Miller is your decision.

I never said anywhere in either post that the parties are equal re: compromise. In fact I inferred otherwise that R's lose this particular battle overall among interparty conflicts. Compromise is not weakness..it is letting go of selfish or party interests with the eventual benefit of the greater so-called good concerning the people's interest. Have some apple pie. Then I presented some factual historical events to support that. Big deal. And I lost the argument according to you or Garp? I didn't lose squat..it's still right here in my pocket.

You were insulting in your response to my response, labeling me as a 'snide little prick'. I didn't take my offensive attacks towards you in the last post to anywhere near that level. Everything I assigned to you regarding 'common ground' was based on what you actually  typed in your previous post. You've never made a post here that I observed that demonstrated that you were even marginally interested in compromise or common ground with my side of things. It's always 'die Trump, kill / sterilize MAGA, all R's are morons', etc. That fails to motivate my motivation.

  In the end, PJ is ALWAYS more reasonable in his discourse than you ever are. Everyone else on your side is more reasonable than you are. Though I seldom if ever agree with those that lean to your side regarding issue policy /stance, I can at least discuss differences without being labeled a prick, weak, or a slimy Trump-licker. I keep telling you that it's often "not what you say but how you say it".Comprende?

You are seldom if ever reasonable after the issues are distilled; you often resort to significant insults when things are posted that you disagree with. I'm not interested in the typical verbal pissing contests seen here. It annoyingly resembles a group of insecure sorority girls who've misplaced their eye shadow or diet cans of seltzer. If you want respect and civility, try earning it. Otherwise, I'm not interested as these types of dialogue that annoy the hell out of me and most all the other participants here. We can all find much more enjoyable methods of wasting our time. Regarding our so-called interaction here, it's going to be limited based on history. But I won't initiate any potential discussion by calling you a low slung gutter slut. Thereafter it's a crap shoot with the associated house edge. Fair enough?

You don't wish to be civil, and your excuse is that you've already seized the moral high ground. I expected no more from you, quite frankly. And yes, I anticipated your self-justification; I also anticipated that you would say that my insults were nastier than yours. Unfortunately, those things tend to escalate. So in honor of your shining quest for fairness, I will only use proportionate retaliation. Measured responses. Fair enough?

I do feel that "your side" is fundamentally wrong, the same way, doubtless, that you feel that "my side" is fundamentally wrong. However, I also think that the documents and tenets upon which our nation was founded fundamentally agree with liberalism and disagree with conservatism. The American Revolution, after all, was the most liberal thing that had been done in human history. And here's the real contradiction about Republicanism: they've been against racial equality, gender equality, and everyone-who-isn't-a-white-fundamentalist-Christian-male-with-a-lot-of-guns equality for decades now. Yet, they're the flag-wavers, while not believing in the statements in the Declaration of Independence.

And the final nail in the coffin? You guys should absolutely abhor Trump. But you don't. Far, far from it! You love love love him! You let him get away with literally anything he wants! You flag-wavers profess to believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, and then you cheer when the Orange Pig treats them like toilet paper!

But be that as it may...one thing you've failed to discern about me, probably because you've focused on our mutual hostility, is that I'm not so much a liberal as a libertarian. Jeremy Bentham. The greatest good for the greatest number. THAT'S the "common ground." And y'know what? I strongly disagree with the Democrat shtick of diverting massive resources to the benefit of small (or tiny) "marginalized groups." In a world of finite resources, we should allocate them fairly. And yeah, there's a bit of horrid, awful SOOOOOOCIALISM in my POV. So you can't attach a simplistic label to my thinking.

I understand that you, in turn, aren't an orthodox MAGA. You express sentiments that would get you boiled alive by the party faithful. And of course, my calls to sterilize all Republicans have been simple hyperbole. I actually think that as many as 5 percent of them should be allowed to reproduce. And you're more than welcome to apply to my administration for an exemption.

But my wishes for Trump's death? Unabated. Trump is a blight on the landscape, a pox on the body politic, and one of the most stupid and evil men to ever walk the earth. He's harmed millions; he's killed thousands. And THAT has zilch to do with politics or ideology. I'd loathe him the exact same way if the Democrat label was the one he chose to paste on his forehead.

       It is really clear as to when the democrats swallowed the TDS Pill that deranged their brains. Is there an antidote they can take to refresh to 2015 before Trump decided to run for President? Its been 11 yrs, so dont look like they found that antidote. So lets eliminate the hypocritical evil, contradicting, demoncrat syndicate party. They are completely unhinged with doing the right thing for America. Thank You Donald J Trump, you are certainly God Sent. America Loves You.

Wow, talk about a pathological condition: rabid Trump Love.

I notice that you're still in favor of one-party rule, just like the Nazis--your idols and your soulmates.

 I noticed you are still delusional. I never said I was in favor of 1 party rule - which is what you are actually in favor of with your DemocRAT obsession.

You want every Democrat removed from office and every Democrat voter imprisoned and killed. What party would remain, in that case?

  Every DemocRAT should be voted out of office, with many rightfully imprisoned. They should not be killed per se, but each and everyone of them should suffer greatly for their lies, deceit and corrupt anti America actions.