Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, I do wonder which direction we go to come to peaceful agreement. I am sure that you don't intend to go from left to right. It bothers me to see ideologues suggesting that we make that movement when I know that neither of us is willing to go the direction of the other very far.
Compromise is not always a necessity. There are some areas where everyone is an ideologue, and others where they are willing to compromise. If someone believes that it is inherently wrong to murder another person in cold blood, why should they be required to compromise?
Personally, I want my congressional representatives to be people of principle and character. They must understand the moral difference between right and wrong and always act accordingly, without compromise. When morality is not an issue, then there can be compromise.
"Compromise" could also be construed as hypocrisy. For example, if someone who is adamantly opposed to abortion because they believe it is the taking of a human life were to compromise by allowing partial-birth abortions, they would in fact be hypocrites. Conversely, if someone who believes that everyone has the inherent right to choose what happens to their own body were to vote for legislation prohibiting partial-birth abortions, they would also be hypocrites.
Compromise when it concerns moral issues is another word for "unprincipled," or "characterless", or "moral relativism." These are the kinds of people I do not want representing me.
Since Congress swears to uphold the constitution when they take the oath of office, as does the President, it's not being an idealogue to stand up for the second amendment. It should be an impeachable offense not to do it.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
So do you support the right of every citizen of the u.s. to own firearms with no restrictions? I mean that is how you interpret the 2nd amendment right. I did not see anything in there about restrictions did you?
Idealogues should not be in congress we have way too many now. How to recognize if a politician or a person is an Idealogue.
On gun control.
*Absolutely no regulations on guns everyone has constitutional right to own them
* The other side. No one should own guns.
On Govt.
*Govt. is inherently good
*The other side .Govt. is inherently bad
On Taxes
*All taxes are good if voted for by congress
*The Other side. taxes are bad and unconstitutional and theft unless they go to me.
*We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem
* The other side - we don't have a spending problem we have a tax problem.
On Religion
*All religion is bad
*The other side. Only my religion is right
On Israel
*Israel should always be supported no matter what the govt. does
*The other side -Israel should never be supported under any circumstance.
On Social Programs
*The govt. should never pay for any govt. social programs that is the responsibility of individuals and the community.
* On the other side - Govt. should provide everyone with their basic needs.
You get the idea.
Here is webster def. of Idealogue. Basically they are flexible in their beliefs and incapable of negotiation. Paul and Justice Scalia would be good examples of Idealogues.
Definition of IDEOLOGUE
1 : an impractical idealist :theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
<as long as there are ideologues controlling both sides of the aisle, legislative compromise is out of the question>
<the revolutionaries proved to be impractical ideologues who had no idea how to run a country>
I've been pondering the same thing recently. American politics have become way to ideological on both sides. the trouble is, when you call either side out for being ideological, then you get the childish finger pointing, and then nothing gets done.
Congress is about compromise. You have different people from different parts of the country, representing different ideas about issues. The key word is different. Inevitably there's going to be compromise. Even the founders did that at the Constitutional Convention. We wouldn't have even had a constitution without the willingness to compromise on issues like representation, the powers of the president, etc...
Originally posted by Glitch
"Compromise" could also be construed as hypocrisy. For example, if someone who is adamantly opposed to abortion because they believe it is the taking of a human life were to compromise by allowing partial-birth abortions, they would in fact be hypocrites. Conversely, if someone who believes that everyone has the inherent right to choose what happens to their own body were to vote for legislation prohibiting partial-birth abortions, they would also be hypocrites.
Compromise when it concerns moral issues is another word for "unprincipled," or "characterless", or "moral relativism." These are the kinds of people I do not want representing me.
Well, I guess it depends on what you consider a moral issue, and everyone has one. But compromise is not inherently a sign of weakness. I see it as being realistic. We always tell our kids that they can't get everything they want. Neither can adults. When working with others to achieve a goal, there will always give and take.
I've been pondering the same thing recently. American politics have become way to ideological on both sides. the trouble is, when you call either side out for being ideological, then you get the childish finger pointing, and then nothing gets done.
Congress is about compromise. You have different people from different parts of the country, representing different ideas about issues. The key word is different. Inevitably there's going to be compromise. Even the founders did that at the Constitutional Convention. We wouldn't have even had a constitution without the willingness to compromise on issues like representation, the powers of the president, etc...
That is absolutely true. The problem is when politicians take a position based on ideology alone versus what is best for the country. The tea party ideology has drawn a line in the sand and said absolutely no new taxes or any repeal of prior tax cuts under any circumstance. That is a stance of an ideologue. There has to be flexibility. There is usually more than one way to solve a problem.
Compromise is not always a necessity. There are some areas where everyone is an ideologue, and others where they are willing to compromise. If someone believes that it is inherently wrong to murder another person in cold blood, why should they be required to compromise?
Personally, I want my congressional representatives to be people of principle and character. They must understand the moral difference between right and wrong and always act accordingly, without compromise. When morality is not an issue, then there can be compromise.
"Compromise" could also be construed as hypocrisy. For example, if someone who is adamantly opposed to abortion because they believe it is the taking of a human life were to compromise by allowing partial-birth abortions, they would in fact be hypocrites. Conversely, if someone who believes that everyone has the inherent right to choose what happens to their own body were to vote for legislation prohibiting partial-birth abortions, they would also be hypocrites.
Compromise when it concerns moral issues is another word for "unprincipled," or "characterless", or "moral relativism." These are the kinds of people I do not want representing me.
I see your point and I purposefully did not put abortion in the mix. I agree that a person can have ideological views on one thing and not on others. However on Abortion, an Ideologue would be abortion is wrong under any circumstance and the other end would be that abortion is always an option. Most people fall in the middle.
Well, I guess it depends on what you consider a moral issue, and everyone has one.
I would certainly hope that everyone has moral issues to contend with, but unfortunately I know that is not always the case. Moral relativists have no principles or standards, they vacillate according to their own whims at the time. Whatever gives them the most advantage. They have no moral compass and are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81
But compromise is not inherently a sign of weakness. I see it as being realistic. We always tell our kids that they can't get everything they want. Neither can adults. When working with others to achieve a goal, there will always give and take.
Compromise is not inherently anything. It can be either a sign of strength or weakness, depending upon the circumstances. On something like whether spending should be cut or taxes increased there is no moral right or wrong, therefore a compromise can be reached by either doing both or neither. However, if it concerns restricting our liberty then there is a moral right and wrong involved and there should not be any compromise toward doing what is wrong. There are no shades of grey between right or wrong.
A ideologues of freedom and individual liberty would rather have us give up, conform and work with the other side to destory our freedoms willingly.
No thank you. Whatever side you are on republican/democrat etc if you not for giving individual liberty on economic and social without government force and tryanny.
Give me liberty or death is the only ideologues that seem to have kept America truly free.
A ideologues of freedom and individual liberty would rather have us give up, conform and work with the other side to destory our freedoms willingly.
No thank you. Whatever side you are on republican/democrat etc if you not for giving individual liberty on economic and social without government force and tryanny.
Give me liberty or death is the only ideologues that seem to have kept America truly free.
Can you be a little more specific as to which freedoms and liberties that you are referring to?
Idealogues should not be in congress we have way too many now. How to recognize if a politician or a person is an Idealogue.
On gun control.
*Absolutely no regulations on guns everyone has constitutional right to own them
* The other side. No one should own guns.
On Govt.
*Govt. is inherently good
*The other side .Govt. is inherently bad
On Taxes
*All taxes are good if voted for by congress
*The Other side. taxes are bad and unconstitutional and theft unless they go to me.
*We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem
* The other side - we don't have a spending problem we have a tax problem.
On Religion
*All religion is bad
*The other side. Only my religion is right
On Israel
*Israel should always be supported no matter what the govt. does
*The other side -Israel should never be supported under any circumstance.
On Social Programs
*The govt. should never pay for any govt. social programs that is the responsibility of individuals and the community.
* On the other side - Govt. should provide everyone with their basic needs.
You get the idea.
Here is webster def. of Idealogue. Basically they are flexible in their beliefs and incapable of negotiation. Paul and Justice Scalia would be good examples of Idealogues.
Definition of IDEOLOGUE
1 : an impractical idealist :theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
<as long as there are ideologues controlling both sides of the aisle, legislative compromise is out of the question>
<the revolutionaries proved to be impractical ideologues who had no idea how to run a country>
I fit none of the criteria, thankfully.
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
