Published: Tuesday, May 8 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
Strong opinions that are centered on priciples are good. Strong opinions that
are centered on self-serving selfishness are bad.If labor demands
high wages, low hours, and limited duties regardless of the fact that high
wages, low hours and limited duties would force the business to go offshore,
those demands are based on selfishness.If management demands more
productivity at the same pay scale, no overtime, dangerous work conditions,
those demands are also based on selfishness.When labor and
management sit down together and formulate ideas that allow the business to be
profitable AND allow the workers to be fairly paid for the duties performed,
then that business has a chance to survive.Look at the
"garment" industry. It is gone. Look at the "demands" that
drove that industry offshore. Some "principles" are not
negotiable. Morality is not negotiable. Honesty is not negotiable. Integrity
is not negotiable. Those who would destroy those principles because of selfish
behavior should understand that they are destroying the foundation of society.
Destroying society is not negotiable.
Yes, this is why Limbaugh threw the elections away. He doe not want to lose his
I have always maintained that the country needs liberals to press for change
when needed, and conservatives, to prevent liberals from giving away the store.
@Mike RichardsYou missed the point. The article was to say that neither
side should be able to control an entire situation. Not liberals, and not
conservatives. You examples are of times when this didn't happen. Your
morality bit is getting old as well, No one (ok almost no one) wants to
"destroy society" just because someone disagrees with you solutions
doesn't make them an immoral person. Hate to break it to you Mike, your no
better than the rest of us.
When two "opposites" are actually largely the same then perhaps we
don't need either of them or we need a third choice.
We have a political system that favors binary choices. It's almost
guaranteed that two polarized factions will emerge from such a system, and that
the candidates they select will hold non-centrist beliefs. It's a recipe
for artificial conflict, built right into our electoral process.
Re: "Solutions are only possible, though, if liberals and conservatives shed
the tribalism . . . ."That's liberal tribalism talking. And
use of the term "solutuions," as liberal newspeak for
"surrender."We don't need more compromised, liberal
solutions. Genuine solutions are already in place and were working quite well
for centuries, until liberals started offering their "solutuions."What we really need are politicians with the moxie and backbone to stand
up to liberals, smoke them out of their carefully constructed rhetorical
fortresses, and point out that prancing liberal "solutions" are, in
fact, unclad -- they solve nothing.Further, liberal
"investments" invest in nothing beyond liberal vote-buying; liberal
"conservation" destroys; liberal "compassion" is cynical,
mean-spririted, and destructive of the human spirit; liberal "logic" is
anything but; liberal "morality" is the worst form of libertine
immorality; and liberal notions of "justice" and "fairness" are
based on the very injustices sought to be prevented by the wise framers of our
Constitution and Nation.Happily, liberals must be running scared for
them to suggest any use whatever for conservatives.
@procuradorfiscal - Thanks for exemplifying the problem, rather than the
@procuradorfiscal -- You really need to get over the "liberals are the
source of al evil" type of thinking. I am relatively liberal, and I assure
you, I have no interest in buying votes for anybody or being mean spirited or
even prancing for that matter. Without liberals we would still have slavery.
Without liberals women would not be able to vote or have property rights.
Frankly, without liberals we'd be a 3rd world country. I agree with this
article, though, that without conservatives pulling back a little, change could
come too fast or be too expansive. Both ways of thinking are beneficial to
society, but it's hard to see the other point of view sometimes.
The problem is both ends of the spectrum and the extreme behavior of them.
Especially the "my way or the highway" approach. On the left you have
Soros and his money pulling the strings. On the right you have the Tea Party
pulling the strings. Guys like Hatch, who are conservative but cross the aisle
on occasion to make good legislation get vilified by the far right for even
dealing with Ted Kennedy or others. Even when the legislation benefits all (the
original CHIP as an example). There are not any Left leaning senators that try
to work the middle anymore with the possible exception of Lieberman on occasion.
They are all scared of Soros.
This is an extremely well-written and insightful article, clearly much more so
than some here (*cough*, procuradorfiscal, *cough*) are comfortable with. I
also wholeheartedly agree with Mike Richards' post (I hope that Mike, nor
anyone else, dies of shock due to my agreement with his post; in all honesty, I
have a great deal of respect for Mike's consistency and vigor in
articulating and defending his convictions, even though I strongly disagree with
some of them).I have long believed that healthy discussion and
debate of public policy alternatives, along with the willingness to "think
win-win", to "seek first to understand, then to be understood", and
to "synergize" (Stephen R. Covey's 4th, 5th, & 6th
"Habits"), will ultimately lead to the best outcomes for our communities
and our nation.
thank you to all the posters that show tribalism is alive and well here at the
DN. You want to fix our broken system start by taking a closer look at your own
unwillingness to engage in a civil discussion with the end game being a viable
solution for everyone not just those you want to win.
Re: "@procuradorfiscal - Thanks for exemplifying the problem, rather than
the solution."Any time.Right back at 'ya for
verifying that "seeking solutions" is just liberal newspeak for
"being willing to surrender to liberals" and that liberals really
believe they can shame conservatives into surrender, if they just doggedly,
disingenuously, and unashamedly refer to their deranged, liberal/socialist
aberrations as "solutions."When liberals begin to question
some of the most insensate of their sacred canons -- that nothing in America
works correctly, that the entire Nation is crying for liberal
"solutions," and that conservatives are the Mephistophelian miscreants
denying them those "solutions" -- then, we'll talk.
@Mike Richards2:07 AM?You old night owl.Let's see, where were we?Ah yes...The garment
industry?Check out "The Triangle Fire" documentary.It might provide some perspective.Who knows?
Re: "@procuradorfiscal -- You really need to get over the "liberals are
the source of al evil" type of thinking."You bet I will! The
very moment they stop being the source of all the political ills that haunt our
Nation and have come to threaten its very existence.You can count on
They need each other in order to dupe the american people into doing nothing
while they destroy the constiution. That's what they need from each other.
They need to keep the sheeple fighint against each other on fake issues while
they do their damage.
@procuradorfiscal"When liberals begin to question some of the
most insensate of their sacred canons . . . then, we'll talk."Do
many conservatives question some of the most insensate of *their* sacred canons?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander."[Liberals] just doggedly, disingenuously, and unashamedly refer to their
deranged, liberal/socialist aberrations as 'solutions'."
"[Liberals need to] stop being the source of all the political ills that
haunt our Nation and have come to threaten its very existence."Proc,
your extremist-biased 'groupthink' is showing . . . It is
closed-minded vitriol like this (and the extreme left is guilty of it, too),
more than anything else, that is the reason that Washington DC is a broken,
disfunctional mess."[Liberals think] that conservatives are the
Mephistophelian miscreants"The far-left extremists might hold this
view, but they are the fringe minority among liberals, and I certainly
don't feel this way. I think we need *more* open-minded moderate
conservatives (but I don't think you want to hear that). I also think we
need more open-minded moderate liberals (and I KNOW you don't want to hear
@procuradorfiscal"When liberals begin to question some of the
most insensate of their sacred canons . . . then, we'll talk."Obama offered to cut from entitlements, to the chagrin of his party, in
exchange for Republicans having to give up some ground on the raising taxes
issue. So I'd say we've already made those sorts of overtures and have
been turned down. That's why we got a 2 trillion dollar debt deal instead
of 4 trillion.
atl134:You keep insisting that Obama made a genuine attempt to cut
spending in exchange for some modest tax increases and that the Republicans
rejected this "honest attempt" to reach some kind of middle ground.Hogwash! What Obama and the Democrats really offered was another empty
promise to cut spending sometime in the future in exchange for immediate tax
increases. The tax increases would impact taxpayers immediately and would be
permanent. The spending cuts (which were not real cuts at all, but just
reductions in projected increases) would never materialize. The promise would
not be kept and government spending would continue to spin out of control.And of course, the Republicans are the bad guys for rejecting this
"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" offer.
on and on we go with the same worthless partisan snipping that got us into this
mess and that the article writer talks about the need to eliminate. You want to
know why we are where we are? look in the mirror and take some personal
accountability for your partisan bickering.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments