On a semi-related (and intentionally cruel) tangent do you think that the Catholic Church should change some of her beliefs for the sake of christian unity?

 

The Catholic Church is not the United States of America. The Pope is not the President. This is not an apples-to-apples analogy. To say more is to hi-jack this thread, but my short answer is no, and my long would begin "it's not that simple".

I get the feeling you think compromise is warm and fuzzy and cuddly, and that you are disparaging of such. However, the hardest thing for most people to do is to compromise, it requires real work, and real analysis. It's much easier to dig your heels in and refuse to open yourself to other ideas.

I get the feeling you view me as a self-impressed hard butt unswerving in my resolve and ego. :lol:

 

I've been married for many years to a beautiful woman with whom I have very nearly mastered the art of compromise. :lol:

 

I am well aware of my own failings and inadequacies. She is strong in areas I'm not. I have learned to trust her judgment in areas of her strength, as she also does with me. We know at the heart of it all, we both have the best interests of one another and our entire family ahead of our own selfish desires. In this regard, compromise can be a beautiful and very well advised thing.

 

As regards our government, compromise for the sake of compromising merely to fulfill the selfish agenda of the other side is foolhardy and reckless.

The Catholic Church is not the United States of America. The Pope is not the President. This is not an apples-to-apples analogy. To say more is to hi-jack this thread, but my short answer is no, and my long would begin "it's not that simple".

I agree. But when you said in your post "often, the best answer lies in the middle", you are saying that is true only in the context of politics?

 

What I am saying is that I don't necessarily agree that the best answer always lies in the middle.

I agree. But when you said in your post "often, the best answer lies in the middle", you are saying that is true only in the context of politics?

 

What I am saying is that I don't necessarily agree that the best answer always lies in the middle.

 

I do think that there are many facets of life as whole where the best answer lies in the middle. In some cases, yes, I believe the Catholic Church HAS and potentially SHOULD compromise. But, again, it's not that simple, and it's not for this thread.

I do think that there are many facets of life as whole where the best answer lies in the middle. In some cases, yes, I believe the Catholic Church HAS and potentially SHOULD compromise. But, again, it's not that simple, and it's not for this thread.

:irked: You're no fun. Keep the threadjack till Hearsay says stop.

I get the feeling you view me as a self-impressed hard butt unswerving in my resolve and ego. :lol:

 

I've been married for many years to a beautiful woman with whom I have very nearly mastered the art of compromise. :lol:

 

I am well aware of my own failings and inadequacies. She is strong in areas I'm not. I have learned to trust her judgment in areas of her strength, as she also does with me. We know at the heart of it all, we both have the best interests of one another and our entire family ahead of our own selfish desires. In this regard, compromise can be a beautiful and very well advised thing.

 

As regards our government, compromise for the sake of compromising merely to fulfill the selfish agenda of the other side is foolhardy and reckless.

 

 

I don't have that opinion of you. And I am sure you're very wonderful as a husband.

 

I'm frustrated though, by your portrayal of my thoughts as trivial. Compromising for the sake of compromising is not what I'm talking about, and I suspect that you know that.

:irked: You're no fun. Keep the threadjack till Hearsay says stop.

 

 

I'm a mod in this forum too, and I'm beating Hearsay to the punch this time.

It seems that the way to bipartisianship these days is for the conservatives to capitulate.

 

Nailed it. :thumb:

 

Has there ever been a time in which conservatives felt that the only way to bipartisianship was for liberals to capitulate?

No Catholic Church threadjacking. We reserve the Great Schism threads for every year in July.

Has there ever been a time in which conservatives felt that the only way to bipartisianship was for liberals to capitulate?

I'm sure there have been but not enough to my liking... :lol:

I'm sure there have been but not enough to my liking... :lol:

 

Well...I can think of a few years recently. :lol:

No Catholic Church threadjacking. We reserve the Great Schism threads for every year in July.

 

 

And here I was getting ready to find the soft pillows and the comfy chair.

Well...I can think of a few years recently. :lol:

 

You underestimate my conservatism... :lol:

Obama mentioned Rush Limbaugh because that gets the most response from the public (and from Rush).

 

You guys took the bait.

 

Obama is every bit as divisive as Rush. Otherwise, he would ignore him and put his efforts into fixing the problems of this country and thereby proving Rush wrong. When he talks about Rush, he is really talking about people who believe like Rush. This is but the first warning shot in the battle.

 

The First Amendment guarantees the Freedom of Press. The purpose for that Freedom is yet another safeguard to keep our government honest and fair. A transparent and effective government has nothing to fear from a divisive radio host.

 

 

:thumb:Excellent post. Obama's ultimate target is not Rush but political forces that are like-minded to Rush. There would be no point in trying to discredit a radio talkshow host unless it might serve to discredit Obama's politcal opponents.

 

It's also a sad commentary on the Republican party that a radio talkshow host shows up on Obama's radar screen instead of an elected Republican office holder.

And here I was getting ready to find the soft pillows and the comfy chair.

 

:popcorn: Don't forget this. I was all ready, too! :irked: