In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Compromise is Losing Slowly
Mr. Perfect
Member, Moderator Posts: 66,372 ******
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
Well put, James, well put.
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
Well put, James, well put.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Comments
But! What happens when the other side agrees to your compromise instead of you agreeing to thiers?[}:)]
What is gained? If I lower the standard, and they accept, I have still lowered the standard.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
So does that mean that the founding fathers, who had to put together a rather large number of compromises in order to create the Constitution, were a group of losers, and we all lost by its creation?
And the argument that you lose half, means that BOTH sides lose half. Don't both sides WIN half, too?
Half a loaf is better...etc.?
NO! you have raised their standards to your minimum.. Therefor you have won.. Next time, you may get the entire Pie..[;)]
My glass is Half full!
I don't agree that compromise means losing...so I disagree with James here.
I think compromise allows me to advance toward my goal...because I'll have more than I did before the compromise. I'm using "compromise" as a synonym for "agreement". I wouldn't MAKE the compromise if it wasn't in my interest.
So does that mean that the founding fathers, who had to put together a rather large number of compromises in order to create the Constitution, were a group of losers, and we all lost by its creation?
I am sure a great number of folks at the time would have thought this way, including many of those involved in the process.
The point now is that for 220 years we have continued to compromise on that original compromise. The original compromise supposedly established the fixed law of the land, only to be changed by a super-majority of the legislatures of the States. We have instead embarked upon, and many have accepted, a simple-majority method of compromising those previously compromised principles.
Obviously anyone has the right to agree with the current emasculation of the 2nd Amendment. They do not have the right, nor does any Government have the legal power to enforce that view upon anyone else. The fact that Congress and State Legislatures, with the full blessing of the Supreme Court, can infringe at will upon the clear wording of the operative clause of the 2nd demonstrates that the rule of law is 100% fungible in today's America. It also demonstrates that the vast majority of voters are willing to surrender that principle for personal convenience and a false sense of security.
That a man who once swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution accepts this compromise of principle is disturbing. Not only in the general sense of acceptance of anti-Constitutional restrictions, but in the larger sense that the most powerful military on the planet is probably manned by folks that may accept a version of the Constitution that exists only in U.S. and State Legal Code.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
So does that mean that the founding fathers, who had to put together a rather large number of compromises in order to create the Constitution, were a group of losers, and we all lost by its creation?
I am sure a great number of folks at the time would have thought this way, including many of those involved in the process.
The point now is that for 220 years we have continued to compromise on that original compromise. The original compromise supposedly established the fixed law of the land, only to be changed by a super-majority of the legislatures of the States. We have instead embarked upon, and many have accepted, a simple-majority method of compromising those previously compromised principles.
Obviously anyone has the right to agree with the current emasculation of the 2nd Amendment. They do not have the right, nor does any Government have the legal power to enforce that view upon anyone else. The fact that Congress and State Legislatures, with the full blessing of the Supreme Court, can infringe at will upon the clear wording of the operative clause of the 2nd demonstrates that the rule of law is 100% fungible in today's America. It also demonstrates that the vast majority of voters are willing to surrender that principle for personal convenience and a false sense of security.
That a man who once swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution accepts this compromise of principle is disturbing. Not only in the general sense of acceptance of anti-Constitutional restrictions, but in the larger sense that the most powerful military on the planet is probably manned by folks that may accept a version of the Constitution that exists only in U.S. and State Legal Code.
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
An inability to compromise will guarantee a 2nd term for Obama.
Yow! Good one!
"Compromise is losing slowly!"
So you should always get exactly what you want! Because you're oh so special!
Compromise is part of being an adult. You make your choices and you live with them. It means getting what's important to you, not everything you want.
Children and babies don't compromise because they don't know how. They whine and pout and cry and kick and scream until they get their way... which apparently seemed to do a bunch of folks just fine because they're still acting like it's perfectly okay to fill a diaper and have someone else change it for them.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
Well put, James, well put.
Compromise is also wining half. You win half in this battle. You win half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
I seriously question how many of you keyboard commandoes have the courage of your convictions.
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
An inability to compromise will guarantee a 2nd term for Obama.
Yow! Good one!
It's just a fact....
If conservatives can't come together to support one candidate, that will ensure Obama wins. Single issue voters that won't vote for Mitt because he's Mormon, or Guiliani because he is not militantly pro-life, or Christi because he is weak on the 2nd Am. or who ever for what ever single issue reason.
It seems to me that's why the Libs have been so successful. Because they compromise on candidates to get the overall goal achieved, which is a Lib majority.
When a group of politicians wants to overturn the Second Amendment and we only agree to a partial overturn, how can that be call a partial win by any definition.
And dlrjj, I don't know what it has to do with the subject, but for what it's worth I've been married to the same woman for forty-seven years. I'm a man, by the way. Traditional marriage.
A compromise in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was a sunset clause. Given the political climate of the time, was the sunset clause a loss or a win in your opinion?
Please note, I am not interested in your opinion of the AWB itself. This is a gunboard. Enough said.
Compromise in the case of the Second Amendment it isn't about we get half of what we want. All we want is less interpretation and more compliance with the Constitution.
When a group of politicians wants to overturn the Second Amendment and we only agree to a partial overturn, how can that be call a partial win by any definition.
And dlrjj, I don't know what it has to do with the subject, but for what it's worth I've been married to the same woman for forty-seven years. I'm a man, by the way. Traditional marriage.
I believe I stated "some here", not a specific reference to anyone.
Our marriage will soon be 40 years, and well worth it, despite the continuing compromises made along the way.
I have a question please:
A compromise in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was a sunset clause. Given the political climate of the time, was the sunset clause a loss or a win in your opinion?
Please note, I am not interested in your opinion of the AWB itself. This is a gunboard. Enough said.
Your question presumes that the climate of the time would have accepted the AWB carte blanche. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is the Negotiable Rights Association had the votes and power at the time to say, "pass this law and we will have 1 million armed members on your door". Instead, they chose to compromise. How lovely.[xx(]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
So Mr. Perfect, are you suggesting that all compromise in inherently wrong, and you will never compromise, since that necessitates losing?
I don't agree that compromise means losing...so I disagree with James here.
I think compromise allows me to advance toward my goal...because I'll have more than I did before the compromise. I'm using "compromise" as a synonym for "agreement". I wouldn't MAKE the compromise if it wasn't in my interest.
When it is a matter of principle yes, all compromises on matters of principle are "losing", which, incidentally, is the subject of the OP.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
It's not hard to see why some here have been married so many times if they truly believe that the art of compromise is inherently that of losing.
It should be noted that the legal contract of marriage requires mutual commitment, since any one partner may dissolve the marriage, even against the wishes and will of the other. So, I don't think that your sophism holds much water.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
An inability to compromise will guarantee a 2nd term for Obama.
Yow! Good one!
It's just a fact....
If conservatives can't come together to support one candidate, that will ensure Obama wins. Single issue voters that won't vote for Mitt because he's Mormon, or Guiliani because he is not militantly pro-life, or Christi because he is weak on the 2nd Am. or who ever for what ever single issue reason.
It seems to me that's why the Libs have been so successful. Because they compromise on candidates to get the overall goal achieved, which is a Lib majority.
Compromise will get us romney, guiliani, or christi. None of which is a conservative. Banding together and voting for a liberal will get us a liberal.
BTW, have you noticed recently that Ron Paul's uncompromising messages are getting parroted by the mainstream republicans? One man sticking to his principles is having a heck of an effect by not compromising.
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
An inability to compromise will guarantee a 2nd term for Obama.
Yow! Good one!
It's just a fact....
If conservatives can't come together to support one candidate, that will ensure Obama wins. Single issue voters that won't vote for Mitt because he's Mormon, or Guiliani because he is not militantly pro-life, or Christi because he is weak on the 2nd Am. or who ever for what ever single issue reason.
It seems to me that's why the Libs have been so successful. Because they compromise on candidates to get the overall goal achieved, which is a Lib majority.
Compromise will get us romney, guiliani, or christi. None of which is a conservative. Banding together and voting for a liberal will get us a liberal.
BTW, have you noticed recently that Ron Paul's uncompromising messages are getting parroted by the mainstream republicans? One man sticking to his principles is having a heck of an effect by not compromising.
Ron Paul isn't going to get nominated, and he knows it. So he can afford to be uncompromising, because he has nothing to lose.
As I said earlier, not compromising will lead to Obama getting re-elected. If sticking to your political ideals is more important, then by all means don't compromise. But don't wonder why Obama will complete his destruction of America over an additional 4 years.
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
An inability to compromise will guarantee a 2nd term for Obama.
Yow! Good one!
It's just a fact....
If conservatives can't come together to support one candidate, that will ensure Obama wins. Single issue voters that won't vote for Mitt because he's Mormon, or Guiliani because he is not militantly pro-life, or Christi because he is weak on the 2nd Am. or who ever for what ever single issue reason.
It seems to me that's why the Libs have been so successful. Because they compromise on candidates to get the overall goal achieved, which is a Lib majority.
Compromise will get us romney, guiliani, or christi. None of which is a conservative. Banding together and voting for a liberal will get us a liberal.
BTW, have you noticed recently that Ron Paul's uncompromising messages are getting parroted by the mainstream republicans? One man sticking to his principles is having a heck of an effect by not compromising.
Sorry, open primaries and Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" got us Obama and McCain. When everyone votes for the worst candidate of the other party hoping to find a beatable opponent, the country looses.
Ron Paul's biggest enemy is Ron Paul. He reads well, but an in person speech comes off as a bit, well frankly, looney.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
Well put, James, well put.
B.S.!!
Compromise if the only way to get things done. It is what the people want, it is how the nation was formed, it is how we are supposed to view governance via the Constitution and it is 'reality'.
You no-tolerance/no-compromise folks are exactly what is wrong with America. We NEED to adopt gradual collectivism to make things better and to make things work.
After all, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago and things are different now.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
Well put, James, well put.
Compromise is also wining half. You win half in this battle. You win half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
I suppose this is true if your goal is to diminish the principled stance of another. I do find it surprising the number of folks on this forum who lack integrity.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
So does that mean that the founding fathers, who had to put together a rather large number of compromises in order to create the Constitution, were a group of losers, and we all lost by its creation?
Once the Constitution was adopted, it became a set framework, based on a specific ethic of liberty and limited government. There is an Amendment Process for changes, if any are deemed necessary.
Other than that, there is no room for compromise on constitutional issues. Anything else is a usurpation
quote:Originally posted by CDMead
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
Well put, James, well put.
Compromise is also wining half. You win half in this battle. You win half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
I suppose this is true if your goal is to diminish the principled stance of another. I do find it surprising the number of folks on this forum who lack integrity.
So now you are the expert on integrity, are you? You're over the line, "Mr. I AM PERFECT, BOW TO ME." That's a ridiculous, insulting statement, even for you. You should be ashamed. [:(!]
Good luck with that.
It's not hard to see why some here have been married so many times if they truly believe that the art of compromise is inherently that of losing.
Compromise is perfectly appropriate in a marriage or relationship and in other aspects of life. We can compromise on where to vacation, what restaurant to eat at, what kind of vehicle to buy, what color drapes to hang, what color paint to use, what house to purchase, etc...
Fundamental principles, one's integrity, one's ethic and textual constitutional issues are not included in acceptable 'compromise'.
An apples and platypus comparison has been drawn.
You may claim I lack integrity, but I have managed to maintain at least a semblance of something I care about, and you're lying in a ditch.
Good luck with that.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you personally lack integrity. It was more a general observation. But I am glad to see your colors shining through now, as well.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by CDMead
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
Well put, James, well put.
Compromise is also wining half. You win half in this battle. You win half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
I suppose this is true if your goal is to diminish the principled stance of another. I do find it surprising the number of folks on this forum who lack integrity.
So now you are the expert on integrity, are you? You're over the line, "Mr. I AM PERFECT, BOW TO ME." That's a ridiculous, insulting statement, even for you. You should be ashamed. [:(!]
reread the entire thread, and you will see that I suggested nothing of the sort. Are you merely projecting, or are you the dog that is barking from my stone being cast over the fence?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
So does that mean that the founding fathers, who had to put together a rather large number of compromises in order to create the Constitution, were a group of losers, and we all lost by its creation?
Once the Constitution was adopted, it became a set framework, based on a specific ethic of liberty and limited government. There is an Amendment Process for changes, if any are deemed necessary.
Other than that, there is no room for compromise on constitutional issues. Anything else is a usurpation
Another agree 100%.
I am actually shocked that so many can't see the compromises that have taken place since that document was created,........even though it involved 'compromise' to create, are what is destroying this Constitutional Republic.
These compromises have been taking place for many years.
IF only we had stuck to the original meaning. All of the years of chipping away are really starting to show now.
Compromising and settling on a Romney, Perry, Cain etc., will ensure the destruction of America in 5-8 or so more years. A bit slower, but just as certain.
So then, what to do...
I guess that I'll just stick to my uncompromising ethic of individualism, liberty and constitutionally-limited government.
That'll likely lead to another write-in or a third party vote if a constitutionalist is available.
Freedom and individual choice are wonderful things, eh?[:)]
I hope none of you self righteous non compromising winners never have to face a real Kobiashi Maru scenario.
quote:If sticking to your political ideals is more important, then by all means don't compromise. But don't wonder why Obama will complete his destruction of America over an additional 4 years.Oh my! The paradigm of the lesser turd raises its stinky head...
Compromising and settling on a Romney, Perry, Cain etc., will ensure the destruction of America in 5-8 or so more years. A bit slower, but just as certain.
So then, what to do...
I guess that I'll just stick to my uncompromising ethic of individualism, liberty and constitutionally-limited government.
That'll likely lead to another write-in or a third party vote if a constitutionalist is available.
Freedom and individual choice are wonderful things, eh?[:)]
Unfortunately "The paradigm of the lesser turd raises its stinky head..." has been present in American politics long before you or I were alive.
An inability to compromise will guarantee a 2nd term for Obama.
Compromising is what lead to his first term.
Ya'll need to chill out; just my worthless opinion.
Debate is one thing and nothing to get your panties in a wad over.
You expect your wife to be faithful to you/forsaking all others. Your wife would like to sleep with the guy next door whenever she desires to do so. Do you compromise and allow her to screw him on Tuesdays and Thursdays?
Something will be half full.
Yeah, that Dred Scott decision was a real pain, wasn't it?
I hope none of you self righteous non compromising winners never have to face a real Kobiashi Maru scenario.
Oh My, a constitutional compromise-advocator AND a Trekkie to boot.[:0]
I thought that we passed an Amendment (which is the appropriate process) that addressed citizenship for black-folk.....Hmmm, what was that one.....