FT sure does.

Has he actually said that?

Lets not start inventing other people's opinions.

Whatever the Founders were thinking of when they dreamt up their new republic, I would lay good money that they never wanted it to turn out like this.

Why? What are you basing that on?

Brooks, you seem to be confused about the difference between compromise and "compromising yourself".

Has he actually said that?

Lets not start inventing other people's opinions.
He has stated that Christianity and America are the greatest ills to fall upon mankind. If that doesn't qualify for America being an "immoral mistake", I'm not sure what does.

Brooks, you seem to be confused about the difference between compromise and "compromising yourself".
Wow.

He has stated that Christianity and America are the greatest ills to fall upon mankind. If that doesn't qualify for America being an "immoral mistake", I'm not sure what does.

Perhaps you should ask him to clarify that point for you then.

Wow.

Thanks. I get that a lot. ;)

Brooks, you seem to be confused about the difference between compromise and "compromising yourself".Then please do clarify (and please choose a better argument than "look it up").

Brooks,

Lets start with you defining precisely what you mean by "compromising yourself".

Why? What are you basing that on?

Well, to start with, the quote in your sig is telling enough.

Lets start with you defining precisely what you mean by "compromising yourself".Sorry, you said I am confused by the difference between the two. This one's yours. Let's hear.

Well, to start with, the quote in your sig is telling enough.

Do you agree with Jefferson?

Can't answer your own question, huh?

I'm not sure. If banks had remained as inaccessible to the general public as they were in Jefferson's day, then certainly, we would be under lock and key by now. But anybody can get a loan for almost anything these days, and the barriers to entry for business are much less than they used to be. But it's safe to say that there's no way the Founding Father's ever envisioned anything like the Federal Reserve, or that our money would be taken off the gold standard.

But anybody can get a loan for almost anything these days.

I really don't agree with that, but the rest of what you said are good points.

I used to not agree with it either, but it's true. So long as a few conditions are met. First, an ability to repay the loan. Second, an acceptable fallback in case the loan is defaulted on, in most cases, collateral, in others, a carefully built reputation. If you possess these two things, you are sure to be able to find a bank that will loan you the money. It's easy to borrow money without collateral if you have a decent enough credit rating, and it's fairly easy to game those systems.

I used to not agree with it either, but it's true. So long as a few conditions are met. First, an ability to repay the loan. Second, an acceptable fallback in case the loan is defaulted on, in most cases, collateral, in others, a carefully built reputation. If you possess these two things, you are sure to be able to find a bank that will loan you the money.

Those are two very significant criteria for qualifying for a loan.

If you think those are too lax, then what criteria would you rather see prohibiting people from getting loans?

Maybe only landowners should get loans?

I think things are fine just the way they are.

I think things are fine just the way they are.

Then the answer to my question of whether you agree with Jefferson is "No."

As would have been indicated by my first response to that question, if you must have a flat yes-or-no answer to that sort of thing anyway.

As would have been indicated by my first response to that question.

You mean, I'm not sure ?

Yep. Is there a point to all this?

Yep. Is there a point to all this?

"I'm not sure".

:corn:

3. As much as people deride George Bush, no one has ever said he isn't likable.
That's not true.

4. Compromise has meant two different things in this discussion.On the positive side it means you can be open minded and accept a solution with which you only partially agree.
On the negative side, it means you'll compromise yourself (vote for another legislator's bridge if he'll vote for your highway. This is almost a requirement in congress).
I still think compromise in general is a huge factor to take into consideration. And I think Obama has the compromise needed to help us succeed in the future. I've given my evidence as to why I think he can compromise well and I personally believe it is solid evidence. If you can tell me why it isn't solid, be my guest.

I've yet to see a sound reason why Obama isn't good enough to be President. Honestly, if you disagree with him on the issues...fine. But other then that I don't think there is any ghosts in his closet or any more "turn-offs". I mean, I like John McCain. I think he's a nice guy. But I'd never vote for him just because of his opinions on the majority of major issues. That does not mean I'm going to attack his "experience" or other mindless things that distract from the real issues at hand.

"I'm not sure".

:corn:

*shrugs* I tried.

Compromise does not mean giving in to the others. Both sides must give something. Here we have two sides completely unwilling to give an inch to one another. It's been that way for years. If the left came up with a better mousetrap the right would deny its' existence.

The right wing media is already smearing Barack ...

http://algraffix.nstemp.com/obama_osama.jpg

Wait until they start on his middle name.

That's all the Republicans have. :)

That's all the Republicans have. :)
That, and his inexperience. Oh, and from Illinois. allForums should know by now not to trust people from Illinois.

That, and his inexperience.
Yeah. Over a decade in the political world is not experience enough. :o

Yeah. Over a decade in the political world is not experience enough. :o
Nope, not to mention he is a Democrat therefore they can criticize him and his beliefs all they want. :o

The right wing media is already smearing Barack ...

The right-wingers at CNN?
Give it a rest.

CNN apologizes ...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/CNN_comments_on_Obama_gaffe_in_0101.html

Not good enough. They have had their fair share of gaffes.

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=6e09e80213d72f535b6cde35b287f611

Compromise does not mean giving in to the others. Both sides must give something. Here we have two sides completely unwilling to give an inch to one another. It's been that way for years.

When do you think it started?

When do you think it started?

In general, or in this country? In general, I'd guess the Romans had to contend with it.

Here? Good question. Damn near from the beginning, most likely.

In general, or in this country? In general, I'd guess the Romans had to contend with it.

Here? Good question. Damn near from the beginning, most likely.
Compromise is a human activity that has occurred ever since the ape man could not overpower the one going after his bananas. :D

In general, or in this country? In general, I'd guess the Romans had to contend with it.

Here? Good question. Damn near from the beginning, most likely.

I guess one could say it all goes back to the Jefferson/Adams rivalry.

but even they were able to respect each other in the end.