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.
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
quote:Originally posted by lt496
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.
Well, I see the 'paradigm' as having directly led us to our current f'd-up state and as something that needs to be eradicated, thus, I am on a quest to confront it at every turn and contrast it with constitutionalism.
Others, including you, seem to be of a mind that since it clearly exists, we must live with it and therefore you continue to advocate for it.
quote:Originally posted by Charles Johnson
Here's a compromise for you.
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.
The compromise is that she can screw him whenever she wants, and I get a divorce. I win in that I don't have to pay alimony, I lose in that I know have to look for another wife (wait--did I really lose then?). She wins in that she gets to screw the guy. She loses in that she gets no alimony and is out one husband. If it's worth it, she'll take that compromise. If it's not worth it, she won't.
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
If you compromise liberty, on any level, you lose. It's that simple.
Just by having GOVERNMENT you compromise liberty. You're no longer free to do whatever you feel. And that's a price I happily pay to live in a society like ours. I don't think it's too much to pay.
If I commit a heinous crime, I even give the Govt the right to end my LIFE. Not to mention incarcerate me, taking my liberty. AND both of those will put a damper on my pursuit of happiness. I guess I better just follow the rules. That's the price I am willing to pay--obeying the laws.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
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
quote:Just by having GOVERNMENT you compromise liberty. Those compromises ended upon the adoption of the Constitution and BOR's. Other compromises that are made via the Amendment Process, outlined in, you guessed it, the Constitution, are perfectly constitutional.
Outside of that, the rules are established and those who desire and advocate changes, restriction and increased control, outside of the amendment process, are flat wrong and are seen, by me, as enemies of liberty and of the Republic.
So, there we have it. You have the freedom to accept and advocate incremental tyranny. I have the freedom to call it as I see it.
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.
I applaud Ron Paul for running and injecting his ideas and philosophies into the debate. Its a good thing to cause the other candidates to respond to his various positions. Though I don't agree with some of his positions.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
Oh yes, Mr. Hanson...our first black President.[:)]
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
Oh yes, Mr. Hanson...our first black President.[:)]
Someone better inform Billy boy Clinton!
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
Oh yes, Mr. Hanson...our first black President.[:)]
LOL!
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
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
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.
Does it really matter whether the destruction is completed by Obama or Romney? Should I care who's at the helm when the ship hits the sand?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Just by having GOVERNMENT you compromise liberty. Those compromises ended upon the adoption of the Constitution and BOR's. Other compromises that are made via the Amendment Process, outlined in, you guessed it, the Constitution, are perfectly constitutional.
Outside of that, the rules are established and those who desire and advocate changes, restriction and increased control, outside of the amendment process, are flat wrong and are seen, by me, as enemies of liberty and of the Republic.
So, there we have it. You have the freedom to accept and advocate incremental tyranny. I have the freedom to call it as I see it.
Ain't America wonderful?[:)][:D]
Exactly!
The Bill of Rights could have been called the List of Liberties Which Will Not Be Compromised.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
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.
The original post was a simple declarative statement that compromise is losing.
My response is and was to that statement, and attempts by those usual posters who wish to obfuscate any issue possible with smoke and mirrors, and a generous dollop of straw men, simply because they enjoy the exercise, are clearly figments of their desire to press an agenda and distort an issue.
Any reference to the 2nd, amendment was made by other than me, but to be expected.
Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is an art form.
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 losing slowly is merely a way of looking at things, not unlike saying The glass is half-empty or Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. As such, the remark is an expression of personal mood or sentiment, not a presentation of a hypothesis.
Of course, one can agree with the sentiment, but that is not the same thing as confirming a hypothesis; there is a vast epistemic difference between what is true and what is true for you.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by lt496
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.
Well, I see the 'paradigm' as having directly led us to our current f'd-up state and as something that needs to be eradicated, thus, I am on a quest to confront it at every turn and contrast it with constitutionalism.
Others, including you, seem to be of a mind that since it clearly exists, we must live with it and therefore you continue to advocate for it.
No thanks, I pass.
Here's a compromise for you.
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.
The compromise is that she can screw him whenever she wants, and I get a divorce. I win in that I don't have to pay alimony, I lose in that I know have to look for another wife (wait--did I really lose then?). She wins in that she gets to screw the guy. She loses in that she gets no alimony and is out one husband. If it's worth it, she'll take that compromise. If it's not worth it, she won't.
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
Brad Steele
If you compromise liberty, on any level, you lose. It's that simple.
Just by having GOVERNMENT you compromise liberty. You're no longer free to do whatever you feel. And that's a price I happily pay to live in a society like ours. I don't think it's too much to pay.
If I commit a heinous crime, I even give the Govt the right to end my LIFE. Not to mention incarcerate me, taking my liberty. AND both of those will put a damper on my pursuit of happiness. I guess I better just follow the rules. That's the price I am willing to pay--obeying the laws.
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
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
Outside of that, the rules are established and those who desire and advocate changes, restriction and increased control, outside of the amendment process, are flat wrong and are seen, by me, as enemies of liberty and of the Republic.
So, there we have it. You have the freedom to accept and advocate incremental tyranny. I have the freedom to call it as I see it.
Ain't America wonderful?[:)][:D]
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.
I applaud Ron Paul for running and injecting his ideas and philosophies into the debate. Its a good thing to cause the other candidates to respond to his various positions. Though I don't agree with some of his positions.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
Oh yes, Mr. Hanson...our first black President.[:)]
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
Oh yes, Mr. Hanson...our first black President.[:)]
Someone better inform Billy boy Clinton!
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Pure obfuscation of the statement.
Oh, you were serious?
The compromises made in 1787 were necessary to get 13 Sovereign Colonies/States to ratify the Constitution. Once made, they are behind us, and the law of the land is established.
Compromises made after that date have been for political convenience or expedience. There is no comparison between up-front compromises to establish the rules and subsequent compromises that diminish them.
As I said on another thread, it's been downhill since John Hanson.[:)]
Oh yes, Mr. Hanson...our first black President.[:)]
LOL!
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
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.
Does it really matter whether the destruction is completed by Obama or Romney? Should I care who's at the helm when the ship hits the sand?
quote:Just by having GOVERNMENT you compromise liberty. Those compromises ended upon the adoption of the Constitution and BOR's. Other compromises that are made via the Amendment Process, outlined in, you guessed it, the Constitution, are perfectly constitutional.
Outside of that, the rules are established and those who desire and advocate changes, restriction and increased control, outside of the amendment process, are flat wrong and are seen, by me, as enemies of liberty and of the Republic.
So, there we have it. You have the freedom to accept and advocate incremental tyranny. I have the freedom to call it as I see it.
Ain't America wonderful?[:)][:D]
Exactly!
The Bill of Rights could have been called the List of Liberties Which Will Not Be Compromised.
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
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.
The original post was a simple declarative statement that compromise is losing.
My response is and was to that statement, and attempts by those usual posters who wish to obfuscate any issue possible with smoke and mirrors, and a generous dollop of straw men, simply because they enjoy the exercise, are clearly figments of their desire to press an agenda and distort an issue.
Any reference to the 2nd, amendment was made by other than me, but to be expected.
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 slowly is merely a way of looking at things, not unlike saying The glass is half-empty or Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. As such, the remark is an expression of personal mood or sentiment, not a presentation of a hypothesis.
Of course, one can agree with the sentiment, but that is not the same thing as confirming a hypothesis; there is a vast epistemic difference between what is true and what is true for you.