The Republican 'Freedom Caucus' Is Un-American

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Let's not act as if this is a tactic that only hard-line "unAmerican" right wingers employ.

http://www.wsj.com/a...tegy-1434064048

http://www.washingto...how-they-ended/

Gov. Cuomo is even urging the NY state legislature to shut it down over gun control measures right now:

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2375628

That's not to say that I agree with the tactic. I just take exception to the notion suddenly NOW it's a concern and so wrong and unAmerican, but flip the majorities or change the issue at hand and it suddenly becomes completely reasonable to the same group of people squalling now.

It's a concern NOW because it's a threat now - or at least before the end of the year.

And I am sure you can find examples of egregious examples of Democratic manipulating the system. Roosevelt tried to pack the court for example. But this crap of shutting down the government simple because you can't exert your will constitutionally is new.

No, it isn't actually new. That's why I posted the links that I did.

If we are just going to ignore the constitution and resort to extortion when you don't have the votes, what's next - civil war?

I agree. How can we get both parties to return to a system where gradual changes and compromise are the norm? If your answer is limited to getting the right wing crazies to change, you're missing the point.

[channonc 466]

Why can we not simply embrace compromise, mutual respect, the love of democracy, and thinking for ourselves? Why can we not be more American than partisan?

How did we get to the point that we are no longer willing to recognize the imperfections of our own party/ideology and, come to believe in the pure evil of the political opposition? Does anyone own a history book? Anyone?

The magnitude of the arrogance and ignorance is simply to great to even contemplate.

Please, return to your respective echo chambers so that you may resume your education indoctrination.

ITCY, the above are questions I ask myself EVERYDAY. I've worked in politics for a long time and can tell you that I have never seen this many people so unwilling to compromise on anything for the good of our country. Right now, it is mostly the far right doing it, but I suspect that the left will have their turn at discontent... in other words, I predict it gets way worse before it gets better.

When I worked in the Senate, I worked for Members who believed very passionately that they were elected to get things done for the good of the country. Of course they had some principles they were unwilling to negotiate, but they were very few and far between and honestly, they were issues that so rarely came up that it didn't matter. Members on both sides of the aisle enjoyed getting to know one another and were even close friends (example: Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch). Heck, one of my former bosses made the news because he was willing to help fundraise for his best friend who happened to be on the other side of the aisle.

This forum is only a microcosm of the voters at large, but unfortunately, so many refuse to read and educate themselves on the issues themselves. I think there are some that enjoy being angry all the time. Everything is a principled issue on which there is absolutely no room for negotiation. Let's just say, folks like that really need to look in the mirror. The world isn't perfect. Those on the other side might, just might have some good ideas on which to build upon. Unfortunately, rational political discussion is hard to come by anymore. There are a few Members of Congress who I think are still trying to have rational discussions, but I fear that many of them are just tired. I expect more retirements of some of these to be announced... we will soon only be left with those who want to continue to promote anger and profit from it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Let's see....huff po (liberal bias) and MSNBC (liberal worshippers) provide insight on a GOP caucus.......

Shocking. Lol

Joe Kennedy thought highly of the NAZI party too. The point ? It's easy to explain away anything, with the right amount of spin an religious fervor, which is what we're seeing from the LEFT.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Let's see....huff po (liberal bias) and MSNBC (liberal worshippers) provide insight on a GOP caucus.......

Shocking. Lol

Joe Kennedy thought highly of the NAZI party too. The point ? It's easy to explain away anything, with the right amount of spin an religious fervor, which is what we're seeing from the LEFT.

See, Raptor gets it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

What I don't get is the constant retreat by the GOP on such clear and winnable issues.

[autigeremt 6,635]

Why can we not simply embrace compromise, mutual respect, the love of democracy, and thinking for ourselves? Why can we not be more American than partisan?

How did we get to the point that we are no longer willing to recognize the imperfections of our own party/ideology and, come to believe in the pure evil of the political opposition? Does anyone own a history book? Anyone?

The magnitude of the arrogance and ignorance is simply to great to even contemplate.

Please, return to your respective echo chambers so that you may resume your education indoctrination.

ITCY, the above are questions I ask myself EVERYDAY. I've worked in politics for a long time and can tell you that I have never seen this many people so unwilling to compromise on anything for the good of our country. Right now, it is mostly the far right doing it, but I suspect that the left will have their turn at discontent... in other words, I predict it gets way worse before it gets better.

When I worked in the Senate, I worked for Members who believed very passionately that they were elected to get things done for the good of the country. Of course they had some principles they were unwilling to negotiate, but they were very few and far between and honestly, they were issues that so rarely came up that it didn't matter. Members on both sides of the aisle enjoyed getting to know one another and were even close friends (example: Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch). Heck, one of my former bosses made the news because he was willing to help fundraise for his best friend who happened to be on the other side of the aisle.

This forum is only a microcosm of the voters at large, but unfortunately, so many refuse to read and educate themselves on the issues themselves. I think there are some that enjoy being angry all the time. Everything is a principled issue on which there is absolutely no room for negotiation. Let's just say, folks like that really need to look in the mirror. The world isn't perfect. Those on the other side might, just might have some good ideas on which to build upon. Unfortunately, rational political discussion is hard to come by anymore. There are a few Members of Congress who I think are still trying to have rational discussions, but I fear that many of them are just tired. I expect more retirements of some of these to be announced... we will soon only be left with those who want to continue to promote anger and profit from it.

Very true! Kasich will be termed a moderate Democrat by the GOP if he continues to methodically move up in the polls. He's playing the long game which I admire....this whole thing lasts too long to begin with. That said the state we are in is a shared one. Democrats are unwilling to budge on many issues and so too are 'right wingers". It began in Clintons second term and has escalated since.....reaching a point to where "We The People" can no longer get through the noise.

[homersapien 11,379]

Let's not act as if this is a tactic that only hard-line "unAmerican" right wingers employ.

http://www.wsj.com/a...tegy-1434064048

http://www.washingto...how-they-ended/

Gov. Cuomo is even urging the NY state legislature to shut it down over gun control measures right now:

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2375628

That's not to say that I agree with the tactic. I just take exception to the notion suddenly NOW it's a concern and so wrong and unAmerican, but flip the majorities or change the issue at hand and it suddenly becomes completely reasonable to the same group of people squalling now.

It's a concern NOW because it's a threat now - or at least before the end of the year.

And I am sure you can find examples of egregious examples of Democratic manipulating the system. Roosevelt tried to pack the court for example. But this crap of shutting down the government simple because you can't exert your will constitutionally is new.

No, it isn't actually new. That's why I posted the links that I did.

I stand corrected.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Let's not act as if this is a tactic that only hard-line "unAmerican" right wingers employ.

http://www.wsj.com/a...tegy-1434064048

http://www.washingto...how-they-ended/

Gov. Cuomo is even urging the NY state legislature to shut it down over gun control measures right now:

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2375628

That's not to say that I agree with the tactic. I just take exception to the notion suddenly NOW it's a concern and so wrong and unAmerican, but flip the majorities or change the issue at hand and it suddenly becomes completely reasonable to the same group of people squalling now.

It's a concern NOW because it's a threat now - or at least before the end of the year.

And I am sure you can find examples of egregious examples of Democratic manipulating the system. Roosevelt tried to pack the court for example. But this crap of shutting down the government simple because you can't exert your will constitutionally is new.

No, it isn't actually new. That's why I posted the links that I did.

I stand corrected.

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

Herein lies my dilemma. I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things.

But then there are others that tend to fall a lot on the economic side of things where there isn't frequently a clear case of right/wrong. The issue is "what works?" And that is where I get off the Republican train most easily. I don't think conservatives always have the right ideas on fiscal and economic matters. Sometimes the liberals do. Sometimes I like aspects of both sides and would like to take the best of both approaches and forge a third way. But the current climate doesn't allow for such thinking. If you challenge the conservative orthodoxy on certain matters, you're a RINO. If you don't go along with the liberal orthodoxy, you're a corporate shill and a sell out. The arrogance both sides possess to think nothing short of complete and total victory on all tenets of their political ideology is ruining us.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

Herein lies my dilemma. I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things.

But then there are others that tend to fall a lot on the economic side of things where there isn't frequently a clear case of right/wrong. The issue is "what works?" And that is where I get off the Republican train most easily. I don't think conservatives always have the right ideas on fiscal and economic matters. Sometimes the liberals do. Sometimes I like aspects of both sides and would like to take the best of both approaches and forge a third way. But the current climate doesn't allow for such thinking. If you challenge the conservative orthodoxy on certain matters, you're a RINO. If you don't go along with the liberal orthodoxy, you're a corporate shill and a sell out. The arrogance both sides possess to think nothing short of complete and total victory on all tenets of their political ideology is ruining us.

Isn't that the same arrogance that you display when you say, "I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things."? What about what others believe? Are there not times when you have practice what you believe and, accept that you cannot impose what you believe?

If compromise means a step in the right direction, would you not be willing to compromise? Can an uncompromising attitude effectively participate in a democracy?

Could we not have a late-term abortion ban right now if it were not for uncompromising attitudes?

[homersapien 11,379]

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

Herein lies my dilemma. I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things.

But then there are others that tend to fall a lot on the economic side of things where there isn't frequently a clear case of right/wrong. The issue is "what works?" And that is where I get off the Republican train most easily. I don't think conservatives always have the right ideas on fiscal and economic matters. Sometimes the liberals do. Sometimes I like aspects of both sides and would like to take the best of both approaches and forge a third way. But the current climate doesn't allow for such thinking. If you challenge the conservative orthodoxy on certain matters, you're a RINO. If you don't go along with the liberal orthodoxy, you're a corporate shill and a sell out. The arrogance both sides possess to think nothing short of complete and total victory on all tenets of their political ideology is ruining us.

Isn't that the same arrogance that you display when you say, "I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things."? What about what others believe? Are there not times when you have practice what you believe and, accept that you cannot impose what you believe?

If compromise means a step in the right direction, would you not be willing to compromise? Can an uncompromising attitude effectively participate in a democracy?

Could we not have a late-term abortion ban right now if it were not for uncompromising attitudes?

Everyone seems to overlook this point, though I don't think it's subtle. It's one think to consider abortion (for example) an unjustifiable evil, but it's a completely different thing to forcefully impose that view on others.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

Herein lies my dilemma. I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things.

But then there are others that tend to fall a lot on the economic side of things where there isn't frequently a clear case of right/wrong. The issue is "what works?" And that is where I get off the Republican train most easily. I don't think conservatives always have the right ideas on fiscal and economic matters. Sometimes the liberals do. Sometimes I like aspects of both sides and would like to take the best of both approaches and forge a third way. But the current climate doesn't allow for such thinking. If you challenge the conservative orthodoxy on certain matters, you're a RINO. If you don't go along with the liberal orthodoxy, you're a corporate shill and a sell out. The arrogance both sides possess to think nothing short of complete and total victory on all tenets of their political ideology is ruining us.

Isn't that the same arrogance that you display when you say, "I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things."? What about what others believe? Are there not times when you have practice what you believe and, accept that you cannot impose what you believe?

If compromise means a step in the right direction, would you not be willing to compromise? Can an uncompromising attitude effectively participate in a democracy?

Could we not have a late-term abortion ban right now if it were not for uncompromising attitudes?

Are there any areas of concern, any issues, any bedrock principles that you personally believe in that you cannot compromise on? Things that are so clearly right/wrong in your mind that you cannot bend on them? I bet there are. Are you arrogant for not compromising on them?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

Herein lies my dilemma. I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things.

But then there are others that tend to fall a lot on the economic side of things where there isn't frequently a clear case of right/wrong. The issue is "what works?" And that is where I get off the Republican train most easily. I don't think conservatives always have the right ideas on fiscal and economic matters. Sometimes the liberals do. Sometimes I like aspects of both sides and would like to take the best of both approaches and forge a third way. But the current climate doesn't allow for such thinking. If you challenge the conservative orthodoxy on certain matters, you're a RINO. If you don't go along with the liberal orthodoxy, you're a corporate shill and a sell out. The arrogance both sides possess to think nothing short of complete and total victory on all tenets of their political ideology is ruining us.

Isn't that the same arrogance that you display when you say, "I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things."? What about what others believe? Are there not times when you have practice what you believe and, accept that you cannot impose what you believe?

If compromise means a step in the right direction, would you not be willing to compromise? Can an uncompromising attitude effectively participate in a democracy?

Could we not have a late-term abortion ban right now if it were not for uncompromising attitudes?

Are there any areas of concern, any issues, any bedrock principles that you personally believe in that you cannot compromise on? Things that are so clearly right/wrong in your mind that you cannot bend on them? I bet there are. Are you arrogant for not compromising on them?

In the realistic sense, in the political sense, I hope not. Nothing quickly comes to mind. And yes, there is a certain type and amount of arrogance in that statement.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

Herein lies my dilemma. I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things.

But then there are others that tend to fall a lot on the economic side of things where there isn't frequently a clear case of right/wrong. The issue is "what works?" And that is where I get off the Republican train most easily. I don't think conservatives always have the right ideas on fiscal and economic matters. Sometimes the liberals do. Sometimes I like aspects of both sides and would like to take the best of both approaches and forge a third way. But the current climate doesn't allow for such thinking. If you challenge the conservative orthodoxy on certain matters, you're a RINO. If you don't go along with the liberal orthodoxy, you're a corporate shill and a sell out. The arrogance both sides possess to think nothing short of complete and total victory on all tenets of their political ideology is ruining us.

Isn't that the same arrogance that you display when you say, "I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things."? What about what others believe? Are there not times when you have practice what you believe and, accept that you cannot impose what you believe?

If compromise means a step in the right direction, would you not be willing to compromise? Can an uncompromising attitude effectively participate in a democracy?

Could we not have a late-term abortion ban right now if it were not for uncompromising attitudes?

Are there any areas of concern, any issues, any bedrock principles that you personally believe in that you cannot compromise on? Things that are so clearly right/wrong in your mind that you cannot bend on them? I bet there are. Are you arrogant for not compromising on them?

In the realistic sense, in the political sense, I hope not. Nothing quickly comes to mind. And yes, there is a certain type and amount of arrogance in that statement.

I think you are trying to straddle a fence that can't always be straddled. I think there are certain things that can never be compromised on and I believe if you think hard enough, you know it's true for you as well. Some things are right, and they are right at all times no matter how many people say otherwise. And something are wrong and they are wrong at all times no matter who says otherwise. And there's really no room to compromise on it unless you're just conceding that you don't really believe in it in the first place.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I am glad this post came up again. The WaPo article is excellent. It renewed, and reaffirmed my belief in the Clinton/Gingrich administration. Actually, my belief in a mandate for a balanced budget (except in times of crisis or, persistent recession/depression). As much as the absolute nature of a balanced budget itself, it is important because it means that fiscal restraint is not limited to just "keeping the other guys from spending",

I think the balanced budget should be supported by BOTH parties. It has a way of balancing idealism with realism. In a way, it supports my belief that progressive policy is good unless,,,,,,,,,,it is implemented and executed by idealistic liberals. I think a balanced budget requirement represents a leash for both parties and, a fundamental platform for compromise.

Maybe, there is nothing wrong with conservative thinking or, liberal thinking unless, you are limited to conservative thinking or liberal thinking? Maybe we should all adopt an attitude of being realistically, idealistic? Maybe a balanced budget is the restraint we need to keep from becoming too ideologically imbalanced?

Herein lies my dilemma. I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things.

But then there are others that tend to fall a lot on the economic side of things where there isn't frequently a clear case of right/wrong. The issue is "what works?" And that is where I get off the Republican train most easily. I don't think conservatives always have the right ideas on fiscal and economic matters. Sometimes the liberals do. Sometimes I like aspects of both sides and would like to take the best of both approaches and forge a third way. But the current climate doesn't allow for such thinking. If you challenge the conservative orthodoxy on certain matters, you're a RINO. If you don't go along with the liberal orthodoxy, you're a corporate shill and a sell out. The arrogance both sides possess to think nothing short of complete and total victory on all tenets of their political ideology is ruining us.

Isn't that the same arrogance that you display when you say, "I believe there are some issues that are clearly ones of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good or evil...issues of fundamental human decency and dignity. I cannot compromise on these things."? What about what others believe? Are there not times when you have practice what you believe and, accept that you cannot impose what you believe?

If compromise means a step in the right direction, would you not be willing to compromise? Can an uncompromising attitude effectively participate in a democracy?

Could we not have a late-term abortion ban right now if it were not for uncompromising attitudes?

Are there any areas of concern, any issues, any bedrock principles that you personally believe in that you cannot compromise on? Things that are so clearly right/wrong in your mind that you cannot bend on them? I bet there are. Are you arrogant for not compromising on them?

In the realistic sense, in the political sense, I hope not. Nothing quickly comes to mind. And yes, there is a certain type and amount of arrogance in that statement.

I think you are trying to straddle a fence that can't always be straddled. I think there are certain things that can never be compromised on and I believe if you think hard enough, you know it's true for you as well. Some things are right, and they are right at all times no matter how many people say otherwise. And something are wrong and they are wrong at all times no matter who says otherwise. And there's really no room to compromise on it unless you're just conceding that you don't really believe in it in the first place.

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

I hate to say this because, it should be insulting but, I have to wonder if you do not understand what I am saying or, you are pretending not to understand. You will not compromise politically but, you will compromise practically, effectively? Perhaps the lines are not drawn as distinctly as you claim? Would that indicate your commitment to being uncompromising does have it's limits? Does the strength of your commitment end politically? Politics in a democracy demands compromise. If your conviction is so strong that you are no longer willing to compromise, perhaps you have to exercise your convictions outside of politics (or run for President but, that is another issue)? Perhaps that IS the point at which you have given up on practicing democracy?

[homersapien 11,379]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

Let's not forget we are talking about imposing one of those principles on others who may think differently from you.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

I hate to say this because, it should be insulting but, I have to wonder if you do not understand what I am saying or, you are pretending not to understand. You will not compromise politically but, you will compromise practically, effectively? Perhaps the lines are not drawn as distinctly as you claim? Would that indicate your commitment to being uncompromising does have it's limits? Does the strength of your commitment end politically? Politics in a democracy demands compromise. If your conviction is so strong that you are no longer willing to compromise, perhaps you have to exercise your convictions outside of politics (or run for President but, that is another issue)? Perhaps that IS the point at which you have given up on practicing democracy?

I think it might be the other way around. I've never said that there isn't ANYTHING I will compromise on. I clearly stated some things that I would. I've simply said there are some matters on which I couldn't. That list isn't very long.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

Let's not forget we are talking about imposing one of those principles on others who may think differently from you.

Pedophiles feel different from me. I'm going to continue working to impose my moral views on them in our laws.

[homersapien 11,379]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

Let's not forget we are talking about imposing one of those principles on others who may think differently from you.

Pedophiles feel different from me. I'm going to continue working to impose my moral views on them in our laws.

Specious comparison. Abortion is legal.

[autigeremt 6,635]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

Let's not forget we are talking about imposing one of those principles on others who may think differently from you.

Pedophiles feel different from me. I'm going to continue working to impose my moral views on them in our laws.

Specious comparison. Abortion is legal.

With restrictions. 9 states have no restrictions...the others do.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

Let's not forget we are talking about imposing one of those principles on others who may think differently from you.

Pedophiles feel different from me. I'm going to continue working to impose my moral views on them in our laws.

Not even in the realm of public or political debate. When you have to move to the extreme fringe to find an argument, it should tell you something.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

Let's not forget we are talking about imposing one of those principles on others who may think differently from you.

Pedophiles feel different from me. I'm going to continue working to impose my moral views on them in our laws.

Not even in the realm of public or political debate. When you have to move to the extreme fringe to find an argument, it should tell you something.

No, it's was an extreme example to give us a starting point. So there are some things on which you would not compromise. Now that we have that established, it's just a matter of where the line is for you.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

That is utterly ridiculous. If there is truly no compromise, are you prepared to fight, kill, or be killed for that cause? Perhaps you should employ a little more rationale before making such an argument or, thinly veiling the accusation of hypocrisy.

There are some things I would die for. There are other things that may not rise to that level (and I'd never be asked to), but I would not compromise on it, even under threat of jail, financial ruin, loss of reputation, social rejection, etc.

And I'm not accusing you of anything other than not digging deep enough into your core principles. Because I believe there are some things that you would find you could not compromise on and you would probably even be willing to fight or die for.

Let's not forget we are talking about imposing one of those principles on others who may think differently from you.

Pedophiles feel different from me. I'm going to continue working to impose my moral views on them in our laws.

Specious comparison. Abortion is legal.

Not at all. Molesting children is illegal because enough people believe it to be morally wrong and in most cases it causes lasting emotional and psychological damage. We as a society agreed and made laws that deem acting on pedophilia illegal and we impose that on those who feel differently about the matter.