Who is attacking America?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Meaning?

Compromise now a days is somebody caving after the other side kicks and screams long enough

[August]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Meaning?

Meaning that compromise in government does not seem to achieve anything except to make one side or the other have to make the same argument from a worse position than than they did originally.

Then there are political positions that just cannot be compromised without betraying ones beliefs. For example a pro-life person can only compromise their position by allowing some fetus' to be murdered instead of all. That's not compromise, that's hypocrisy just as it would be for a pro-choice person to compromise into allowing some abortions to be denied.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by JU_88

To hell with these bought and paid for scumbags with no intergrity. Ron Paul is Americas last and only hope.
Ironic how Paul's main priority is restoring civil liberties and a abiding by the constitution. Yet he is not 'mainstream' enough for the masses.

he'd probably end up driving past a grassy knoll though

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by em2nought

he'd probably end up driving past a grassy knoll though

Sad but true.. or more likely he will mysteriously 'die of old age' sadly Ron Paul doesnt have enough support.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by August

Meaning that compromise in government does not seem to achieve anything except to make one side or the other have to make the same argument from a worse position than than they did originally.

Then there are political positions that just cannot be compromised without betraying ones beliefs. For example a pro-life person can only compromise their position by allowing some fetus' to be murdered instead of all. That's not compromise, that's hypocrisy just as it would be for a pro-choice person to compromise into allowing some abortions to be denied.

Unfortunatley for a western Goverment, its supposed to be their job to cater for more than one set of mainstream beliefs, not just bulldoze though what they believe in, in its entirety.
Maybe people with extreme views or uncompromising beliefs should stay out of democratic governments that rule free nations. (and move to a county that is run by a dictatorship)

[Skybird]

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/topics/compromise/

Not easy.

Tyranny has been shown bad by history. Democracy has been shown bad by history, the costs of tyranny you see early, the costs of democracy you see late. I do not like both, I no longer claim the one to be better than the other. Functioning for a while both can. Surviving forever none can. But I have to offer no alternative different from saying that man would be well-advised if he immediately becomes sane, reasonable and well-educated.

Maybe it is another reminder that dualism and inner contradiction seems to be a build-in feature of all things that exist.

Could it be that a final, a perfect solution simply does not exist, and cannot exist?

In the end, everybody of us stands for himself only, and it is our conscience only that we need to accept accountability towards. Which can be a one- or two-way dilemma, because our conscience is just this - OUR conscience. Not the others'.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Unfortunatley for a western Goverment, its supposed to be their job to cater for more than one set of mainstream beliefs, not just bulldoze though what they believe in, in its entirety.
Maybe people with extreme views or uncompromising beliefs should stay out of democratic governments that rule free nations. (and move to a county that is run by a dictatorship)

And who defines what "extreme views" are that disqualify somebody from offices? Just think of the different ideas of freedom of speech. Is freedom of speech covering the intentional personal hurting of the other? Is criticism of Islam an offence that must be exclusded from free speech, like it is being claimed time and again? Political correctness, anonymous pressure from public climate to supress unwanted opinions, what about that? If somebody states he is motivated by religion, does this deserve respect that he claims for himself, or exactly the opposite, as I claim? Has the minority in a democratic system the right to prevent the majorty from forming a majority decision, like filibustering implies? Individual rights versuus communal rights, freedom to make individual profits at the cost of communal losses - what about that?

Is freedom regulated to some degree by generally enforced rules still freedom, or is even the taking away of the smallest jota the total loss of freedom alltogether? Is freedom only where anarchy is, is any setting of rules, law and order thus the absence of freedom? Is freedom the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest?

Or are rules needed to even allow a window of opportunity for freedom to unfold? Where does responsibility fall into it all? Is there responsibility at all? Is all rules proclaimed by ethical systems, just arbitary and worthless?

You see, its not that obvious an issue. And imho: it is impossible to find a satisfying solution. Thus there will be always cheating, conflict, and the attempt to rule by the argument of having the longer teeth and the louder voice.

There are principles that for me are non-negotiable. I would wish they would be shared by the society I live in. But it is not like that, it is exactly the opposite. that is what brings me into such an unsolvable comflict with the society I live in. We are at odds, them and me. I cannot help it, the only thing I can do is to stick to these my principles nevertheless, no matter what.

And maybe that is what principles really are about: Not collective efforts, but individual ones.

In a book series that influenced me quite a lot when I was a teen, a science fiction series for young readers, the protagonist got told by his wife this: "What you believe in, you should be willing to live and to die for."

I think that is what it's about.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And who defines what "extreme views" are that disqualify somebody from offices? Just think of the different ideas of freedom of speech. Is freedom of speech covering the intentional personal hurting of the other? I criticism of islam an offence that must be exlcusded from free speech? Political correctness, anonymous pressure of public climate to supress unwanted opinions, what about that? If somebody states he is motivated by religion, does this deserve respect that he claims for himself, or excatly the opposite, as I claim? Has the minority in a democratic system the right to prevent the majorty from forming a majority decision, like filibustering implies?

Is freedom regulated to some degree by generally enforced rules meastill freedom, or is even he taking away of the smallest jota the total loss of freedom alltogether? Is freedom only where anarchy is, is any setting fo rules, law and order thus the absence of freedom?

Or are rules needed to even allow a window of opportunity for freedom to unfold?

You see, its not that obivious an issue. And imho: it is impossible to find a satisfying solution. Thus there will be always cheating, conflict, and the attempt to rule by the argument of having the longer teeth and the louder voice.


There are principles that for me are non-negotiable. I would wish they would be shared by the society I live in. But it is not like that, it is exactly the opposite. I cannot help it, the only thing I can do is to stick to these my principles nevertheless, no matter what.

And maybe that is what principles really are about: Not collective efforts, but individual ones.

In a book series that influenced me quite a lot when I was a teen, a science fiction series, the protagonsit got told by his wife this: "What you believe in, you should be willing to live and to die for."

I think that is what it's about.

I meant maybe they should stay out of it volentarily, not be forced to stay out... not realistic of course.
You're right that by the definition of freedom, no where in the world is 100% free and nor should it be, if people are left to be entirely free, anarchy takes hold.
Obviously humans need stability as much as they need freedom so we must balance the two to get the best results,
again, compromise
Im pretty sure most self proclaimed anarcists would crap their pants if they had to live in true anarchy.

[yubba]

I really get a kick out of elected officials acting like royalty.

[Platapus]

Compromise - the only consummation to an issue in which both sides lose.

[August]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Obviously humans need stability as much as they need freedom so we must balance the two to get the best results,
again, compromise

But only to a point. One can compromise a bit of their freedom for some important purpose and come off not much the worse for it, but it never stops there now does it. Next year or next legislative session they will be asked to compromise away a little bit more, then a little more, then a little more, ad infinitum until it's gone completely.

At some point one has to say "no more compromise" or loose it all and I think we're about there on many of our societies issues.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by August

But only to a point. One can compromise a bit of their freedom for some important purpose and come off not much the worse for it, but it never stops there now does it. Next year or next legislative session they will be asked to compromise away a little bit more, then a little more, then a little more, ad infinitum until it's gone completely.

At some point one has to say "no more compromise" or loose it all and I think we're about there on many of our societies issues.

That I fully agree with.
In the above case, the compromise needs to go the other way.

[Sailor Steve]

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

The way we use our democracies is rather pathetic, the majority votes for one of two major polictical parties, (both in the U.S and here in the UK.)
So we only really give ourselves 'one more choice' than a dictatorship.
Why?
What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

[MH]

Originally Posted by JU_88

What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

Some other ju88ver2 would be very unhappy?
As i see it many stances democracy tries to keep too many people too happy for too long and now it may be the time for reality check.
Greece is good example...everyone had happy times until thing started to come around.
The bankers and the lobbyist are not the only to blame.