PDA

View Full Version : Compromise?



Taxcutter
01-24-2013, 09:34 AM
A lot of alleged ‘independents’ on this board call for Congressional compromise. OK. Compromise is how it is supposed to work.

But compromise is NOT: “Give the Democrats all they want and get nothing in return.

Let me throw out a real compromise.

Go ahead and enact a requirement for gun-show background checks. But Big Government, having taking something away from the people must give something back. My compromise is to go for gun show background checks as long as the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act are repealed lock, stock, and barrel. Of course the hundreds of thousands of regulations promulgated pursuant to that statute become null and void.

Now that is real compromise. Are you ready for real compromise?

Pete7469
01-24-2013, 11:20 AM
That is something I've ranted about before myself. You don't "compromise" with wrong, or else you'll never be more than half-right. Furthermore we should never compromise with the democrooks. If they get half of what they want now, they'll be after the other half before the ink dries on the new legislation.

patrickt
01-24-2013, 11:51 AM
I was chatting with a friend at our local mosque. I asked why, since almost all the guys at the mosque were moderates, was the mosque so radical. He thought a moment and said, "We're capable of compromise and they're not."

That's the position we're in now. The socialists are not capable of compromise because they're on a jihad. For President Obama, what I want is not negotiable and what you want is not negotiable so lets compromise.

Chris
01-24-2013, 12:22 PM
I don't disagree with the above comments but don't think our government with it's check and balances was built for compromise but for contention of different factions to keep them in check as well. See Madisons' Federalist 10 on factions:


Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

Pete7469
01-24-2013, 01:08 PM
I was chatting with a friend at our local mosque. I asked why, since almost all the guys at the mosque were moderates, was the mosque so radical. He thought a moment and said, "We're capable of compromise and they're not."

That's the position we're in now. The socialists are not capable of compromise because they're on a jihad. For President Obama, what I want is not negotiable and what you want is not negotiable so lets compromise.

Why can't you get rid of the radical mosque?