This letter has lots of tough talk, but what does all of this verbiage mean?
Sounds like the expression "big hat, no cattle". There is a lot of
rhetoric coming from the right but when it comes to actually sacrificing for
your principles it's a different story. When a tropical storm hits
Louisiana, famous conservative Bobby Jindal is on the phone in 15 minutes
begging Obama for federal disaster aid. When Mitt "saves" the Winter
Olympics, who foots the bill for $342 in Olympic expenditures? You guessed it
the federal government.It reminds me of one of my Tea Party tenants, who
after attending a Tea Party rally, and railing against "big government"
returns home, and collects her SS, and Postal Service retirement checks!
Yes, Sandy. You must stick to your principles. But is there no common ground?
Politics is not a war between good and evil. It is a rivalry between different
philosophies of governing. Surely both sides believe in doing what's good.
Let's see the good that each side has to offer and build on that rather
than vilifying the other side to the extent that any concession whatever, no
matter how helpful, is considered traitorous.
So the world is black and white. How naive and unthinking. And is it just what
you say it is? Maybe it's the Democrats who have truth and should therefore
not compromise. Ever think about that?
How convienent to think that the world consists of simply right and wrong and
not often just dfferences. If this is true there can only be one true form of
democracy..so England sorry you're wrong. Thanks for letting us borrow some
of your ideas..but in the end you're wrong. I presume this also means the
federalist and the anti federalst we're just a bunch of spineless
compromisers..and oh wait a minute how can we be right if we have a mix of both.
One has to be right and the other wrong so..?
Very few of our political decisions in involve right and wrong. They tend to
involve better or worse. Is a top marginal tax rate of 35% better or worse than
a rate of 39%? Should the defense budget be 500 billion or 525 billion? Again
it's a case of better or worse, neither position is intrinsically right or
wrong, and you can make a valid case for either one. Most of our political
decisions are like that.
This type of mentality in this letter is just scary. What Sandy is
advocating isn't Democracy nor freedom, but Totalitarianism. Why even have political parties if one is wrong and the other is right? Heck, based on your logic, why even have an election since you seem to
think that one party endorses your religious/moral beliefs while the other
is/does the complete opposite?
To compromise with political opponents over, say, tax policy, is not a betrayal
of core principles. It's an attempt to get something done that's
It might be incredibly stupid, but we've always done it that way.
If only there was such a thing as truth. And if there was just a way to know it
if we see or hear it. In all forms of government only a select few
are allowed to decide what is truth. In a democracy we think the weight of
numbers point to the true. Though the failure of democracy to always be correct
persists, many of us believe it to be the best. If a person believes
democracy to be the best he should seek those who would allow the choice of the
people to reign. And be able to recognize what sort of government actions lead
to personal freedom and the ability to be a voice in government. Those touting independence, self reliance, voluntary participation in society
and lack of control from government would take away a person’s personal
freedom. Their motivation is that they themselves wish to control and enslave
the people. Even though those characteristics are regarded as
good they also weaken the individual in his ability to deal with the world in
general. And thus make him a readymade victim for those who would enslave him.
Someone once said, "All roads lead to Rome". Another said, "Strait
is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be
that find it".Where is Rome today?How many are
walking the "straight and narrow"?How many are trying to
tell us that there are many ways to compromise (our principles) so that they can
claim "unity"?There can never be a compromise on principles.
Principles are black and white, wrong or right. Shades of gray only exist with
those who are willing to compromise. They, like Rome, will cease to exist,
while those who hold true to principles will be endowed with eternal
responsibilities. God does not compromise. We must never compromise
when the question at hand is about morals or about ethics, i.e., we can
compromise on how much should be spend on defense, but we can never compromise
on the necessity of spending for defense.
Right now we have two competing views about how to solve our economic mess.
Unfortunately, both sides are a little bit right and mostly wrong. Real
solutions will involve changes that most Americans are not yet willing to
accept. But for the parties to not compromise gives us the worst of all possible
worlds. Better to compromise for an imperfect solution than to simply sit in our
respective corners and pout if we don't get our way--while the house burns
down.And Mike, how do you know God does not compromise? I can think
of a few examples from the Bible where he was talked into allowing something he
had forbidden (the Israelites wanting a king comes to mind). I always find it
amusing when people take it upon themselves to declare what God will and will
not do. Thin ice there, in my mind.
Kent,Who chose a King, the people or God. I find it amusing that
you would blame the choice of a people on God and that you would tell us God
changed his mind, when, in fact, it was the people who rejected God. Do you see
anything like that going on today?When people compromise their
principles, they often put the blame on God for the consequences that follow.
Ms.ThackareyNo gray area? Everything black and white?Garden of Eden:God: Don't partake of the fruit. Multiply
and replenish the earth.Mostly the world is not black and white.
Perhaps there are two extreme ends of any spectrum, but between those ends is a
vast area of gray. If the world were just black and white, we could let a
computer do the thinking/reasoning for us. Life is intensely complex. Look
"My values and beliefs cannot be compromised. I must stand and defend them
rather than excuse or dilute them."---You ASSUME
that your truth and values are the only truth and values. You
couldn't be more incorrect about that.
Sandy Thackery represents today's conservative "base," and
it's irrational letters like this that say the most about why we can expect
President Obama to be re-elected in November.And btw, Sandy, I am
convinced to the core of my very being that my moral compass is correct and that
yours is out of whack.Now then, where does that leave us if no one
is willing to compromise?
The letter writer is trying to point out that on certain issues we as a nation
have reached a point of impasse. Each side has a few issues that have a
yes-or-no answer that they cannot give up. But the reality is, those
issues are few in number and the rest we can give and take on. We ought to
focus on those.
All the leftists ranting on this board about the virtues of compromise, need to
start preaching to their president. Name 2 compromises he has made to accomplish
any sort of public policy, or regulation that is significant and noteworthy, and
has pushed progress forward in governing the nation. Don't want to hear
about vague half-truth promises he has proposed with his fingers crossed behind
his back. No, real compromise that was actually inacted!
So Mike does God want a 35% tax rate or a 39% tax rate? One has to be right and
the other wrong..right..or wrong?
All the repubs ranting on this board about the virtues of compromise, need to
start preaching to boehner, mcconell and kantor . Name any compromises they have
made to accomplish any sort of public policy, or regulation that is significant
and noteworthy, and has pushed progress forward in governing the nation.
Don't want to hear about vague half-truth promises they have proposed with
fingers crossed behind their backs. No, real compromise that was actually
The tax rate is irrelevant when there is no budget. Who would ever vote for an
increase until he had a binding budget that paid only for programs authorized be
the Constitution. As usual, some liberals want to argue about the tax rate when
they are not willing to tell WHY we're being taxed. There can be no
compromise on a tax rate until the Democrats first compromise on non-authorized
spending.How can they justify paying G.M. Unions $39 billion from
the public treasury? How can they justify paying Soros $2 billion out of the
public treasury? How can they justify paying Solyndra $500 million out of the
public treasury. Not one of those payouts is Constitutional, but they want to
raise taxes so that they can do more of the same.Let's debate
the important things before arguing on tax rates.
I have yet to see the left ever compromise.Not once.It
has always been the right that must step left.I never buy it when
left says we must compromise, or must we have more compromise, they are only
talking about the opposition.
NinJutsu... I used to think both sides "believed in doing what is good"
Sadly I can no longer believe that. Who is for the rich and who is for the
poor? Which side has to make the President into "not one of us". Which
side was willing to misrepresent and outright lie about the other? Which side
said from the first that their only goal was to certain a one term president?
Which side is more likely to get us involved in more waring. Whick side wants
to do in Medicare and Social Security not to mention Medicaid.It
isn't hard to see who has their heart in the right place.
To "1aggie" you are wrong.Adam and Eve were told they
couldn't freely eat of the fruit of knowledge. They had to be given the
fruit at the appropriate time. No grey area, and no contradiction.God is a God of absolutes. See Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is
against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." That sure sounds
like a Black and White viewpoint.
jthompson..as the saying goes..good grief charlie brown..that whissing sound you
hear going past your ears that's the point of the comments. Nobody is
arguing tax policy. We've only said there is not a right or wrong tax
rate. It depends on ...To a larger point..giving and taking on
issues is not evil and does not require you to give up your intergity or
principles. If I believe in a princple strongly that has three points and I
believe the country will be better off if it implements those three points, but
I can only pursuade my opponents to implement two of the points I'll take
what I can get right now, and work on getting the third point later, and yes
that requires that I act in the present without the third point contray to what
I believe is best. It's William James pragmatisim it's Americanism.
Pleasantville, all I could imagine reading this was the movie
"Pleasantville".Where EVERYTHING was Black & White.
dwayneProvo, UTThe Real Maverick,"This type of
mentality in this letter is just scary. What Sandy is advocating
isn't Democracy nor freedom, but Totalitarianism."That is
as uncivil as anything anyone could ever say.[No it isn't --
Never Compromising is Totalitarianism, period -- look it up for yourself.]================ RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo
"1aggie" you are wrong.God is a God of absolutes.Black
& white.There is no gray area.[Then you deny the
Atonement.You Deny the 3 degrees of Glory and MANY mansions, You
deny in Moral reltivism, You deny the Heathen nations, You deny
Proxy Baptism, Proxy Sealings, You're God of absuletism, denies
just about everything that makes LDS theology true.Go back to your
Heaven/HellBabies and little children going to purgatory, And
Heathen Nations are not God's children and not entitled to his
blessings.That's a God of Absolutes.
Truth is often in the eye of the beholder. Those that think in absolutes are
simply emotinally and intellectually immature.
To "LDS Liberal" since you claim to be a member of the LDS church, go
and read what the Prophets and leaders of the church you claim membership in
have to say about life being shades of grey (Moral Relativism).D
Todd Christopherson speaking out against Moral Relativism (shades of gray) in
May 2009.Dallin H. Oaks speaking out against Moral Relativism
(shades of gray) in October 1992 in an article titled "Religious Values and
Public Policy". He repeated this message again in February 2011 in an
article titled "People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion". He
again repeated the message about the evils of shades of grey (Moral relativism)
in a CES fireside in September 2011 titled "Truth and Tolerance". Neal A. Maxwell spoke out against it in May 1995 in a talk titled
"Deny Yourselves of All Ungodliness"Ezra Taft Benson spoke
out against it multiple times, and said "The philosophy of relativism
attacks the eternal principles of truth."If life is full of
"shades of gray" why do so many prophets teach about absolutes. Why do
the prophets teach that the shades of grey you believe in is wrong?
95% of political decisions are not based on anything objectively moral one way
or the other. As someone said in an earlier post, is a 39 % tax rate immoral
but a 35 % tax rate is moral? Of course neither one is moral or immoral. Those
are policy decisions that have nothing to do with morality. It's silly to
say you will never raise taxes or cut entitlements or whatever. Those are
things that can and should be compromised on in a society where people disagree.
No one should expect to always get their way 100% of the time like a spoiled
@hahahaEvery piece of legislation passed by Congress and supported
by the President during his tenure was a compromise. From the affordable health
care act, to the stimulus package, to banking regulations. Each contains dozens
if not hundreds of compromises. I cannot recall a single piece of legislation
that did not contain compromises. That is how democracy works.
It is the strident forces of both parties that I believe has led us to where we
are at. And BTW, where we are at is not a good place...