How do we go about real compromise?

[KG1]

Yep, nobody likes the middle man... LOL

Points for working Burl Ives into the discussion.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It’s the price you pay to be different.

I occasionally get people correcting me on my errant ways on posts where I have ideas that are contrary to INGO

I usually only correct you for typos. Honestly, if some of you guys (you, chip, Andreus, Bug (sometimes) are typing on phones, I'm all . But I'll be the first to admit that if posts carry on for more than a couple of paragraphs' worth, I'm scrolling on by. No offense. I'm the same with guys that post videos that are more than 8 or 10 minutes. Just not gonna watch them. I'm all about succinctness.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yep, nobody likes the middle man... LOL

I don't mess with Mr. In Between...

 

[KG1]

Points for working Burl Ives into the discussion.

On second thought I'm taking those points back because I now have that song stuck in my head.

 

[2A_Tom]

AM said
"Well, despite feeling like 90% of this thread has been talking past each other and not understanding what the other person was saying"

Correct me if I am wrong.

You want compromise, real compromise, where we get something back that has been taken away from us and we give them a little tiny bit and return and you believe that is real compromise.

You don't believe what has been called compromise in the past is real compromise.

If that is what you are saying I got that in your very 1st post.

The problem is that some of us that have been around and around this since the seventies, know that that will never happen and the idea of even suggesting it is a little bit silly.

 

[Ingomike]

AM said
"Well, despite feeling like 90% of this thread has been talking past each other and not understanding what the other person was saying"

Correct me if I am wrong.

You want compromise, real compromise, where we get something back that has been taken away from us and we give them a little tiny bit and return and you believe that is real compromise.

You don't believe what has been called compromise in the past is real compromise.

If that is what you are saying I got that in your very 1st post.

The problem is that some of us that have been around and around this since the seventies, know that that will never happen and the idea of even suggesting it is a little bit silly.

And, as has been said, the lefts compromise is to take rights, promise to stopping calling us names, but they lie…

 

[BigRed]

Here is a story on an event that illustrates how to compromise with those who want to make you susceptible to harm.

Canton homeowner shoots, kills armed intruder

A Saturday morning shooting left one person dead after a Canton homeowner claims a man unlawfully forced entry into his home.

www.kltv.com

Short version:
Thug compromises home owner.
Home owner dispatches thug.
Each side gave up something for a better situation.
The home owner gave up some ammo.
The thug gave up his life.
The world is a better place.
Compromise concluded.
The end.

 

[jamil]

Yep, nobody likes the middle man... LOL

Eh, this is more my style.

 

[jamil]

d

Here is a story on an event that illustrates how to compromise with those who want to make you susceptible to harm.

Canton homeowner shoots, kills armed intruder

A Saturday morning shooting left one person dead after a Canton homeowner claims a man unlawfully forced entry into his home.

www.kltv.com

Short version:
Thug compromises home owner.
Home owner dispatches thug.
Each side gave up something for a better situation.
The home owner gave up some ammo.
The thug gave up his life.
The world is a better place.
Compromise concluded.
The end.

That probably wasn't a good trade for one of them.

 

[sgtmack]

d

That probably wasn't a good trade for one of them.

I know, ammo is expensive.

 

[BigRed]

d

That probably wasn't a good trade for one of them.

Only for the one that initiated a stupid game.

 

[garni]

More United States citizens died trying to keep the union together (and tear it apart) than in any other war. Before we go any further the Succeeding States started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. There was no war of aggression. If you start something with the United States of America you should accept the consequences.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

More United States citizens died trying to keep the union together (and tear it apart) than in any other war. Before we go any further the Succeeding States started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. There was no war of aggression. If you start something with the United States of America you should accept the consequences.

This part of the discussion was moved to another thread:

"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

Starting a new thread for this, which came up in a thread of a different subject. If they do though it'll start the Second Civil War. Second? There was never a first. Not a civil war. The seceeding states were not attempting to take control of the central state. They were walking away...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[Shadow01]

I have no desire to see true conservative politicians compromise with the communists on any legislation. I prefer grid lock as long as a single communist is holding a federal elected position. Either win at all cost or tear it down to the ground at all costs. Continuing this charade will only cost us time and more money from our pockets.

 

[BigRed]

I have no desire to see true conservative politicians compromise

Nor do I.

I'm still looking for a politician that has conserved anything.