A recent article on Breitbart.com had this little observation "President Obama suggested that he had all the answers to the pressing issues facing America and therefore no compromise was necessary with Republicans. He added that Republicans should compromise."
I believe that those two sentences have both of the primary meanings of the word "compromise".
Here are the two main senses of the verb "compromise": 1 : a settlement of a dispute by each party giving up some demandsNote: I beieve that thisis what most people think of when they hear the word "compromise". 2 : a giving up to something that is wrong or degrading : SURRENDER
I do not believe Dear Leader is willing to give up ANY of his demands if for no other reason than he is utterly certain that he is right. What he believes the GOP should do is flat out SURRENDER/CAPITULATE.His idea of "bi-partisanship" is te other side shutting their mouths and doing things HIS way! Dear Leader will suffer/brook ABSOLUTELY NO opposition - loyal or otherwise! In Obama's universe you are allowed to hold any opinion you want - so long as your opinion is the same as his!!
The whole point of the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was to spell out that which shall not be compromised, or infringed.
When they seek compromise, they are announcing that they are not preserving or upholding the U.S. Constitution. In seeking your "compromise", they desire that you no longer preserve or uphold the U.S. Constitution also. There can be no compromise or negotiation in this.
I no longer feel the necessity to argue over my rights with anyone.. this petty feuding with words amongst each other and prancing like roosters is tired.
I have them, if you disagree you have to decide if you are willing to die to force me to give it up.
That's just it. All of the gun issue "compromises" have come from the pro gun side. The statist have given notheing. They will claim they have by saying "we wanted all of this but gave up this this and this." BS, they haven't given jack. I speak only for myself when I say, I ain't given one more freakin' thing. I will not live one my knees. I will live the rest of my life as a free man, regardless how long that time is.
"Progressives" will claim that what we received for giving up our "rights" to certain types of weapons is more "security"/"safety".....in spite of the overwhelming statistics to the contrary.
It's the old "trading liberty for temporal security" schtick that Franklin warned us about.
here is how compromise works:I give you something you want, you give me something I want. So, in that vein, I will give you a 100% background check for 10 years so we can evaluate its viability. In return, you will repeal NFA 34 and GCA 68. Deal? Yeah, I didn't think the artards would go for that.
14 comments:
A recent article on Breitbart.com had this little observation "President Obama suggested that he had all the answers to the pressing issues facing America and therefore no compromise was necessary with Republicans. He added that Republicans should compromise."
I believe that those two sentences have both of the primary meanings of the word "compromise".
Here are the two main senses of the verb "compromise":
1 : a settlement of a dispute by each party giving up some demands Note: I beieve that thisis what most people think of when they hear the word "compromise".
2 : a giving up to something that is wrong or degrading : SURRENDER
I do not believe Dear Leader is willing to give up ANY of his demands if for no other reason than he is utterly certain that he is right. What he believes the GOP should do is flat out SURRENDER/CAPITULATE.His idea of "bi-partisanship" is te other side shutting their mouths and doing things HIS way! Dear Leader will suffer/brook ABSOLUTELY NO opposition - loyal or otherwise! In Obama's universe you are allowed to hold any opinion you want - so long as your opinion is the same as his!!
Compromise is what folks do when it comes time to choose toppings on a pizza, or when picking out furniture.
The very concept of compromise on one's principles is a fallacy.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, compromise will ensure that, eventually, everyone will lose.
Once you sit down to negotiate on what's yours, you already lose.
The whole point of the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was to spell out that which shall not be compromised, or infringed.
When they seek compromise, they are announcing that they are not preserving or upholding the U.S. Constitution. In seeking your "compromise", they desire that you no longer preserve or uphold the U.S. Constitution also. There can be no compromise or negotiation in this.
Compromise...
Is for the "loser" ... Jockeying for a better outcome.
Compromise is for... Those that have no beliefs
Compromise is ... 1st Place "LOSER" (see above)
I no longer feel the necessity to argue over my rights with anyone.. this petty feuding with words amongst each other and prancing like roosters is tired.
I have them, if you disagree you have to decide if you are willing to die to force me to give it up.
I've made mine..
Yank lll
That's just it. All of the gun issue "compromises" have come from the pro gun side. The statist have given notheing. They will claim they have by saying "we wanted all of this but gave up this this and this." BS, they haven't given jack. I speak only for myself when I say, I ain't given one more freakin' thing. I will not live one my knees. I will live the rest of my life as a free man, regardless how long that time is.
06en
iii
Compromise comes in 750 grain packages - with boat tails - and is suitable for extremely quick delivery!
Damn Fools ...
III
Dear Leader will suffer...
I do hope, and firmly expect, that it will be so, and for an
Eternity.
Make it So!
Here's my proposed "compromise" law: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/bruce-w-krafft/a-compromise-gun-control-bill-i-can-live-with/
I will compromise. I will give them all the bullets they can stand at 2786 FPS.
I will not give 1 inch, on my God Given Inalienable Rights.
I will not compromise, unless it is in how many I will shoot, for trying to take my Rights.
I will not comply, with any new Gun Laws, and if they push it. I will no longer comply with their old Gun Laws.
I will resist with force, till my dieing breath.
So help me God
Semper Fi
Compromise?
NO!
No further explanations are needed, nor would be considered by those seeking the "compromise".
"Progressives" will claim that what we received for giving up our "rights" to certain types of weapons is more "security"/"safety".....in spite of the overwhelming statistics to the contrary.
It's the old "trading liberty for temporal security" schtick that Franklin warned us about.
here is how compromise works:I give you something you want, you give me something I want. So, in that vein, I will give you a 100% background check for 10 years so we can evaluate its viability. In return, you will repeal NFA 34 and GCA 68. Deal? Yeah, I didn't think the artards would go for that.
Post a Comment