COMPROMISE -- FALSE CHOICE AND FALLACY

We are being bombarded (brainwashed?) by the claim that Obama cannot get opponents to "COMPROMISE."
Think about this. With some issues compromise may be appropriate. But, with most issues, absolutes of right and wrong, good and bad should prevail. Curtailing the massive spending beyond the capability of the national economy to provide jobs and commensurate tax revenue, with life-threatening indebtedness the result, is not an issue amenable to compromise. Think of it as two people in an automobile speeding toward a cliff, the driver going ever faster and the passenger urging to STOP! Driver says, "no deal, I'm going 100." Passenger has two options. Take control of the automobile or "compromise." So, they compromise to 50 mph ----- and die but more slowly. Such is the US budget and debt situation. Compromise is a false choice at best. When will Obama and his compliant congress, voters, pundits and others learn? There's no evidence they will.

Comments

  1. Randy McC19 September, 2011

    Compromise? What an ugly word. Compromise is having morals and a commitment to do the right thing and in an instant throw it all away just to get along. To appease the left.

    I don't want my representatives in Washington to compromise on even the smallest detail. It would be far better to do nothing than to compromise your values and ideals.

    Compromise would have seen the United States destroying half of Japan in the Second World War like we did to many cities in Germany. As it happened, Truman made the decision to destroy two cities to save hundreds more from certain destruction. I want my Conservative Representatives in Washington to repeat that wisdom and stop this socialist bent in its tracks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more