Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

[VMI77]

I respect anyone who has enough brains to actually filter out all of the hype and read between the lines. It's interesting to me that you call out both the liberal and conservative groups on limiting your rights to self-defense, because it's usually a lot of one sided blaming on this forum. It's just the side that varies a little bit.

Meaning: I like people who agree with me.

OR it means he hasn't sold his soul for any political party and he applauded a person for being critical of both parties. Self assesment of those groups we tend to align with is both good and healthy.

He's referring to the OP and defending Obama with that first line as much as laying claim to any kind of neutrality. I don't share your assessment that he's critical of both parties. Maybe he is, but that's not what I gather from his posts. It's more like he rejects any criticism of progressives as illegitimate if the critic doesn't also criticize conservatives.

I'd like to see a little more nationwide teamwork. Even if it's a little painful. I think we could accomplish great things. It just seems to run so contrary to the last 70 years of our political system.

You liberals never tire of telling everyone else what they need to do

When in hades did moderates become the bad guys or automatically deserve the title liberal? BUT, I'll say it for you, I consider myself to be a very conservatively leaning moderate; I am probably the spawn of satan.

I hear people calling themselves moderates but I don't really know what that means. A lot of time it seems people labeling themselves this way are really saying --look at me, I'm reasonable, unlike those liberals and conservatives who are just extremists. There are even people on here who call themselves liberals, but in my view, while they may not be conservatives, they're really not liberals --and what separates them from today's version of a liberal is a belief in individual, not "collective" rights. A lot of self-proclaimed "moderates" strike me as just compromisers --people who want to be liked more than they want to be right. I can't remember the last time I saw a legitimate compromise in our political landscape, and this is especially obvious with the 2nd Amendment. So if you will, educate me on what it means to be a moderate: specifically, what compromises are you willing to make, in exchange for what, on the 2nd Amendment?

As far a the liberal moniker goes.....I can only go by what people say on here. He usually takes the more liberal position in his posts, but most of all, he speaks liberal. That the Constitution "provides" rights is a liberal position. The "greater good" is pure Marxism:

"History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy." -- Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)

And just so you know, I have near zero respect for most politicians. About the only guy on the national scene I can even hope to have any enthusiasm for is Ted Cruz. The GOP sold out to the Statists long ago --though I probably have a little less contempt for the GOP than I do the Demorats. Still, they're all mostly rats. If I was going to self-identify I'd have to say I'm a libertarian (don't confuse this with support for the LP, which I loathe almost as much as the GOP) with a militaristic bent --which I guess to a moderate would make me an extremist. But then I agree with Barry Goldwater, that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue; and extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

[cb1000rider]

Nope...you just keep repeating your error. The title is clearly NOT a quote from the article, but the expression of an opinion by the author.

You're kidding right? How can you tell that the title is an opinion? It indicates something Obama "said".
The only problem is that he didn't say that. Not even out of context.

The title is an interpretation of what a pathological liar actually means when he speaks. Because Obama is a narcissistic pathological liar leading an administration of pathological liars, every utterance he and they make must be analyzed and interpreted; and in the context of a lying narcissist the authors interpretation is not only reasonable, but most likely, also accurate. There is no public disservice created by the expression of this opinion, quite the contrary. Only a sycophant or a complete fool would believe any utterance from our liar-in-chief.

I have no issue with interpretation of Obama or any other politician. My point is simply that the title is inflammatory and not factual. It is, on the surface, impossible to tell that it is an opinion. It's designed to garner reaction from the Sheeple who won't bother to read it and just take it on face value, which at least one person on this forum did.

Note, I'm not debating the name-calling above. Political opinion is political opinion. Like Obama or hate him, that's not what my objection is here.

[cb1000rider]

VM,
Please discontinue the political name calling. If you want to have a rational discussion, I'm all for it. I grow tired of you labeling me and my statements incorrectly.

Meaning: I like people who agree with me.

Your interpretation is absolutely incorrect. How the heck do you get that from my statement, "It's interesting to me that you call out both the liberal and conservative groups on limiting your rights to self-defense, because it's usually a lot of one sided blaming on this forum" ?
It was really an intellectual compliment to another forum member. I like it when people look at both sides.

Meaning: People should vote for what YOU regard as best for the collective.

Give me a break. That's not what I said. I also didn't indicate what I think is best for the collective. I simply stated that perhaps we, as a country, should look past our pet pig and consider doing something that might benefit the entire country long term. Sure, there will be debate around what that is. And no, I didn't say it's got to be my way. It's not socialist, it's not marxist, it's not communist. I don't mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I'm sorry you've labelled me, but you don't get to put words into my mouth. When I mean "what I regard is right for the collective," I'll say it.

The "greater good" is pure collectivist thought, and absolutely meaningless, except as an excuse for forcing part of the population to do what you collectivists want. The "greater good" "logic" of collectivism is the foundation of the dogma that results in mass murder. The country wasn't founded on the principle of any mythical "greater good," it was founded on the principle of individual rights, and as a Republic, not a Democracy. You "progressives" have exterminated or rendered impotent every measure the Founders created to keep a functional Republic.

There you go with labeling and name calling. Indicating that we might need to look past pork-barrel politics for a greater good - that makes me a collectivist? And somehow that equates to some thought process allowing mass murder?

I also mentioned that I saw no reason to trample individual rights. But you ignore that. My "for the greater good" indications are largely economic - as indicated. I'm sorry if you have a problem with "collectivists" but I'm not advocating taking away any rights for any reason. I thought I made that clear?

Meaning: everyone should share your priorities, otherwise, what you seek is impossible to achieve.

No. I expect to have to compromise myself. I don't have an agenda for what that is particularly, but I'd like to see a more balanced budget and an end to a massive deficit. Yea, that might cost me something personally.. I don't expect everyone to share my priorities and I don't expect to achieve everything I want.

You liberals never tire of telling everyone else what they need to do, what pain they need to bear, or spending other people's money to further the advancement of whichever is the current favored utopia. I don't want to be on your team; and I suspect I'm not alone. So, to have your way, you're going to have to use compulsion of one kind or another, and that's where what is called "liberalism" these days always comes down to --people who believe they are so much more qualified to run the lives of other people than those people themselves, and can usher in their progressive utopia if everyone would just listen to them and do what they say, and that their concept of the "greater good" justifies doing whatever they have to do to those who won't play on their team.

More political name calling?
I suggested that we cooperate more as a country and look past our own individual wants. That includes myself. I don't expect utopia, but I would like to see better economics and less government that is run by money interests behind the scenes. If that's "liberalism" - I'll take it, but I don't think that's what it is.
Understand, I have an amount of personal responsibility. I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm suggesting solutions and recognize that all compromises include me and my interests also.

[03Lightningrocks]

Trying to regulate morality is the very reason the republicans are doomed to continue failure after failure. Meanwhile, the socialists gain power and take everything we work so hard for and give it to people they see as more deserving to buy votes. If the republicans would get off the hater train and leave moral choices to individuals, they might actually be able to get a few votes from folks who are fiscally conservative but don't care about what moral choices others make. But they won't... and our country will go down the crapper because folks are more afraid of jack booted religious zealots than they are government regulation of prosperity.

It kind of sux because there is no arguing with an irrational fear that homosexuality is somehow contagious. I have always wondered if the folks who speak out the loudest against homosexuality are maybe concerned that they are homosexual and want to hide behind radical speech, hoping we won't figure it out.

[The Annoyed Man]

Trying to regulate morality is the very reason the republicans are doomed to continue failure after failure. Meanwhile, the socialists gain power and take everything we work so hard for and give it to people they see as more deserving to buy votes. If the republicans would get off the hater train and leave moral choices to individuals, they might actually be able to get a few votes from folks who are fiscally conservative but don't care about what moral choices others make. But they won't... and our country will go down the crapper because folks are more afraid of jack booted religious zealots than they are government regulation of prosperity.

I find that to be an odd fear to have, given that in our national history there are LOTS of examples of overt fiscal immorality—FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society" are only two of them—whereas the only time I can recall religious zealots tyrannizing the rest of us was the passage of the 18th Amendment, which was overturned a scant 13 years later in 1933 with the 21st Amendment. But fiscal tyranny has been a constant part of the political landscape ever since the New Deal was initiated, not coincidentally in my opinion, in the same year as the ratification of the 21st Amendment. "Let's get drunk and spend a LOT of money!"

It kind of sux because there is no arguing with an irrational fear that homosexuality is somehow contagious. I have always wondered if the folks who speak out the loudest against homosexuality are maybe concerned that they are homosexual and want to hide behind radical speech, hoping we won't figure it out.

Keep wondering. I thought homosexuality was icky back when I was a stupid liberal. Today, I still think it is icky, but what I think is apparently irrelevant. I think "homosexual rights" as a cause are entirely appropriate as an indicator of the general degradation of cultural standards. But that's what people want. Let 'em have it. Jesus said we shall be known by our fruits. He was right.

And this is why I am extremely pessimistic about the nation's future. American will continue to exist, but we are becoming a Weimar Republic, and we all know how that turned out. I no longer care about trying to convince people of the error of their ways. They've got control of the crazy train, and the rest of us are along for the ride. Me, I'm wearing my seatbelt and I have my rescue knife ready so I can cut the straps and bail right after impact. But there WILL be an impact. I just hope the rest of you are ready for it. Denial is a fine thing until it rears up and bites you hard in the nether regions.

[Abraham]

cb1000rider,

Have you come with a mission to educate - not that there's anything wrong with that...

Would you describe yourself as conservative, democrat, libertarian, liberal, socialist, Marxist? (And yes, I've rather mixed and matched)

And please, don't hedge...be bold enough to declare yourself.

Me, I'm an independent conservative - meaning I vote for who ever I think best, irrespective of party affiliation.

As for gay marriage, it's here whether Obama places his imprimatur on it or not.

Next category of marriage it'll be everything and anything marriage, fish or fowl...

If my wife dies before me, (just to clarify, she's a female human) I plan to marry our three cats who are all neutered males and one is handicapped or as we like to say handi-abled...

Peace out!

[goose]

I apologize from the git-go. I should probably have cleaned up the quoted portions better.

I respect anyone who has enough brains to actually filter out all of the hype and read between the lines. It's interesting to me that you call out both the liberal and conservative groups on limiting your rights to self-defense, because it's usually a lot of one sided blaming on this forum. It's just the side that varies a little bit.

Meaning: I like people who agree with me.

OR it means he hasn't sold his soul for any political party and he applauded a person for being critical of both parties. Self assesment of those groups we tend to align with is both good and healthy.

He's referring to the OP and defending Obama with that first line as much as laying claim to any kind of neutrality. I don't share your assessment that he's critical of both parties. Maybe he is, but that's not what I gather from his posts. It's more like he rejects any criticism of progressives as illegitimate if the critic doesn't also criticize conservatives.

But isn't a person (a conservative) that is unwilling to be critical of their own party, doing their (our) party a disservice long term? There are plenty of examples through time where people went along with the party line, starting from a good place and ending in a horrible place because no one wanted to criticize their own movement. Often on this board we poke fun at sheeple for simply following along with the biases of the mainstream media. Other than a vote to count on, I personally don't hold conservative sheeple in any higher regard. We should be the party of integrity. Holding ourselves to a higher standard will always be a good thing. Being critical of our party in order to do that is not a bad thing.

Maybe I have digressed. I love a good debate about my conservative party because I think that it should long term make us a better people and a better party. Maybe I just didn't see anything whacked out crazy in his posts.

I'd like to see a little more nationwide teamwork. Even if it's a little painful. I think we could accomplish great things. It just seems to run so contrary to the last 70 years of our political system.

You liberals never tire of telling everyone else what they need to do

When in hades did moderates become the bad guys or automatically deserve the title liberal? BUT, I'll say it for you, I consider myself to be a very conservatively leaning moderate; I am probably the spawn of satan.

I hear people calling themselves moderates but I don't really know what that means.

But why? And I don't ask that flippintly (is that even a word). We negotiate every day. Most people do. Most people in any marriage that is halfway decent do. Seeing good sides of two positions doesn't make a person less committed to their own. Taxes. Most people don't believe that they should be zero. Most people don't belive that they should be 50%. That big huge grey area in the middle is where moderation and compromise actually work. Not every political idea will be an easy discussion. And 2A topics wouldn't fit in there well at all. But vast swaths of other topics are very much negotiable.

A lot of time it seems people labeling themselves this way are really saying --look at me, I'm reasonable, unlike those liberals and conservatives who are just extremists. There are even people on here who call themselves liberals, but in my view, while they may not be conservatives, they're really not liberals --and what separates them from today's version of a liberal is a belief in individual, not "collective" rights. A lot of self-proclaimed "moderates" strike me as just compromisers --people who want to be liked more than they want to be right.

Why does a compromise have to be about popularity? Compromise helped our country form. Do you think all 56 signers of the Decleration were in a unanimous position? They took a bunch of different views about how this whole thing should go and they made a mix that turned out pretty effective. Were there possibly choices that would have been more effective but couldn't get the buy in of everyone? Probably. And rather than scraping the whole deal....they moderated, they compromised, they formed our great country on compromise.

I can't remember the last time I saw a legitimate compromise in our political landscape, and this is especially obvious with the 2nd Amendment.

I do not disagree about the 2nd Amendment.

So if you will, educate me on what it means to be a moderate: specifically, what compromises are you willing to make, in exchange for what, on the 2nd Amendment?

I didn't know that we had so narrowly defined the issue. Originally it was about gay marriage. Compromise would be to live and let live. Judge like you wanna be judged. Give everyone the freedoms we demand for ourselves. No elitism, even in marriage. NRA Life member here. I don't plan to compromise on the 2nd ammendment. I would, however, negotiate buying some bridge to nowhere if it allowed us to fortify our 2A rights further.

As far a the liberal moniker goes.....I can only go by what people say on here. He usually takes the more liberal position in his posts, but most of all, he speaks liberal. That the Constitution "provides" rights is a liberal position. The "greater good" is pure Marxism:

"History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy." -- Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)

And just so you know, I have near zero respect for most politicians. About the only guy on the national scene I can even hope to have any enthusiasm for is Ted Cruz. The GOP sold out to the Statists long ago --though I probably have a little less contempt for the GOP than I do the Demorats. Still, they're all mostly rats. If I was going to self-identify I'd have to say I'm a libertarian (don't confuse this with support for the LP, which I loathe almost as much as the GOP) with a militaristic bent --which I guess to a moderate would make me an extremist. But then I agree with Barry Goldwater, that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue; and extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

I think zero respect for politicians and for our current system gives us lots of room to be critical of our parties. I suspect that I am far more libertarian than I would like. I would only change Barry's quote as my own to say that if moderation is the best way to the end game then moderation will get more justice than no moderation. I think this might tie into the OC discussions here on the board. Incremental steps are better than no steps. That might well be the definition for me.

[cb1000rider]

Have you come with a mission to educate - not that there's anything wrong with that...

I come with a mission to discuss. I don't profess to be educating anyone else and I certainly learn things myself.

Would you describe yourself as conservative, democrat, libertarian, liberal, socialist, Marxist? (And yes, I've rather mixed and matched)

What, you're asking and not telling? That's refreshing.
I'm not a registered Republican or registered Democrat. If I want to vote in the primary for a candidate, I may change that, but I don't consider the affiliation sticky. On this forum, I'd certainly be considered more liberal than the majority. To be clear, I'm socially liberal. I have things to protect fiscally, so I'm generally fiscally conservative, with some outlandish views on paying down the debt, even if that means more taxes for a time.
Libertarian, partly - I believe in political freedom for everyone, even people that I don't agree with.
Marxist, Socialist, Communist... I'm not going to dignify that. I'd like less government handouts for those that don't need it, a system that encourages people to get back to work, but in terms of being "Socialist" - I'll admit to seeing a need to support those that absolutely are physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves.

In terms of constitutional rights, I'm very conservative. I don't think they should be given up for any reason, not even for security. I don't think there is a valid excuse for trampling on them.

I'd like to see less government. But I'm also a realist and know that it's very hard to decrease the scope of government. In that sense, I'm pragmatic.. At least in my own mind.

I vote without care to party line... With perhaps a pragmatic streak, as in if I know a 3rd party candidate doesn't have a chance, I'll make the choice between the other two. I might vote on the 3rd party under some circumstances.

As for gay marriage, it's here whether Obama places his imprimatur on it or not.

The government should get out of the marriage business. That's my political solution.
As that didn't happen, I support gay marriage. I support it not because I believe marriage can be anything we define it to be, but I support it because this country had decades to make things equal for homosexuals and chose not to do so. I think there is much more evil in allowing continued hate and discrimination than there is in regard to damaging the value of my marriage at home.
If everything else was equal for homosexuals, I'd stand with the conservatives against it.

I'm professional. Educated. Caucasian with a wife and a child. Younger than most on this forum, but well out of my stupid years.. well, mostly...

I believe in practical and truthful discussion without distorting the facts or political bickering. I respect your opinion and your morals. I may or may not agree, but my respect won't change.


Thanks for asking.

[Abraham]

"What, you're asking and not telling? That's refreshing.

Did you over look this part of my previous post?

"Me, I'm an independent conservative - meaning I vote for who ever I think best, irrespective of party affiliation."

From your posts, you come across as a something of a ready to rumble, banner held on high, sanctimonious scold.

Perhaps, I'm wrong, but that's the impression I read.

"I'll admit to seeing a need to support those that absolutely are physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves"

Conservatives think this also and such compassion doesn't come under the heading of Socialism. Liberals think they've cornered the compassionate market and mean ole conservative wouldn't help anyone, anytime, anywhere - Not so...

"Marxist, Socialist, Communist... I'm not going to dignify that."

Uh-huh, except the vast majority of liberals I've known, when they get a snootful will gleefully express their belief in some mixture of the principles of the above three - though most are quite reticent admitting so unless loaded.

[cb1000rider]

"What, you're asking and not telling? That's refreshing.

Did you over look this part of my previous post?

No, but I didn't mean that it was refreshing coming from you... I meant that it was nice to be asked and not told on this forum. No jab at you intended or implied.

From your posts, you come across as a something of a ready to rumble, banner held on high, sanctimonious scold.
Perhaps, I'm wrong, but that's the impression I read.

Feedback understood... And appreciated.

"I'll admit to seeing a need to support those that absolutely are physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves"
Conservatives think this also and such compassion doesn't come under the heading of Socialism. Liberals think they've cornered the compassionate market and mean ole conservative wouldn't help anyone, anytime, anywhere - Not so...

I'm not indicating what conservatives think, I'm just careful to qualify that I think there should be some government care of those that can't take care of themselves. As others have mentioned, such care wasn't guaranteed when our country was founded and I don't argue that point. I take care to specify, as I smell the "socialist" brand coming.

"Marxist, Socialist, Communist... I'm not going to dignify that."
Uh-huh, except the vast majority of liberals I've known, when they get a snootful will gleefully express their belief in some mixture of the principles of the above three - though most are quite reticent admitting so unless loaded.

If you want to pull them all apart and find some one ingredient that I agree with, that might be possible. I don't know what that ingredient is off hand, it might be a belief in minimum standard of living for those who can't earn it on their own. I could say the same thing about being radically conservative, there are pieces that I find appealing and I align with. What I object to, is the inherent name-calling on this forum, a conservative forum, where the names really aren't meant to express a social concept or a system of government from end to end, they're used to vilify and degrade. These things are the sum of many parts, and support of one part or ingredient doesn't align you with that belief system.

[VMI77]

Nope...you just keep repeating your error. The title is clearly NOT a quote from the article, but the expression of an opinion by the author.

You're kidding right? How can you tell that the title is an opinion? It indicates something Obama "said".
The only problem is that he didn't say that. Not even out of context.

Here's how you know:

1. Title says Obama: I won't make churches conduct gay marriages (that's not a quote, and easily inferred to be an interpretation)

2. Title says Obama: "I won't make churches conduct gay marriages" (that title is claiming that Obama said those exact words).

It's really not all that complicated.

[cb1000rider]

At least we both agree on the fact that he didn't actually say what was in the title.

[Abraham]

" I don't know what that ingredient is off hand, it might be a belief in minimum standard of living for those who can't earn it on their own."

Are you speaking of those incapacitated thus unable to work?

Or, those who backed off education, or effort to get ahead or simply decided that earning a living was something they just aren't up because, darn it, it's just too hard...so they should be provided a minimum standard of living?

No homeless should ever exist, eh?

If that's what you mean, I'm not willing to take more care for those who care little for themselves. I've a family full of these people. Self respect isn't mentioned in this group. If they can remain on the dole - they will. They could work, but won't, ah, until the welfare money dries up and then voila, they find jobs.

On a personal note, as a child I was homeless for years. During the homeless years my Dad and I hitchhiked all over the country. North to South. East to West so we oscillated like this for years. His work ethic was nonexistent. He loved freebies and never hesitated to take and take and suckers would give and give. Was he grateful? The only emotion he returned was contempt. Could he work? Absolutely. The world is full of people like this.

Once under my own control at fifteen, I worked at a job after school and supported myself sans government care. Finally I graduated and went on to higher learning. I wasn't going to be my Dad.

Without putting too fine a point on it after years of effort, I'm quite well off. I could just as well have remained with my hand out looking sad and complaining about my miserable standard of living...with a "won't you help, please....it's, sniff, not my fault, sniff. Please just take care of me, honestly, it's not my fault, blah, blah..." all the while looking at you out of the corner of my eye waiting for you to crack and say, "hey, I'm gonna help you poor soul" while con men rejoice...

Those unwilling to better themselves because they lack the will to do better are on their own.

Being human doesn't make anyone automatically deserving.

[03Lightningrocks]

Think about it all for a minute folks. Maybe we should give in and let the libtards have a few of their deepest desires.

Benefits to state sponsored abortion. (1) Fewer welfare babies to support. Since welfare babies beget welfare babies... we can eventually eliminate them all. I would much rather pay up front for an abortion and avoid having to pay for years of support.

Benefits to allowing Gay marriage. (1) They can't reproduce. Eventually, they will become extinct.

Benefits to legalizing all drugs. (1) We can save billions in law enforcement costs. Again, eventually, they will all die. (2) How about taxing the holy smoly out of drugs and allowing anyone over the age of 18 to buy them from special dispensaries. We can use the additional tax money to pay for special places the strung out addicts can live until they die.

I dunno... just thinking out loud here. There may be other benefits to allowing them to just do what ever kind of self destructive lifestyle they want. These were just a few I could come up with quickly.

I am not for special rights and protections for "special categories" . That garbage needs to stop.

[VMI77]

But isn't a person (a conservative) that is unwilling to be critical of their own party, doing their (our) party a disservice long term? There are plenty of examples through time where people went along with the party line, starting from a good place and ending in a horrible place because no one wanted to criticize their own movement. Often on this board we poke fun at sheeple for simply following along with the biases of the mainstream media. Other than a vote to count on, I personally don't hold conservative sheeple in any higher regard. We should be the party of integrity. Holding ourselves to a higher standard will always be a good thing. Being critical of our party in order to do that is not a bad thing.

I agree.

I hear people calling themselves moderates but I don't really know what that means.

But why? And I don't ask that flippintly (is that even a word). We negotiate every day. Most people do. Most people in any marriage that is halfway decent do. Seeing good sides of two positions doesn't make a person less committed to their own. Taxes. Most people don't believe that they should be zero. Most people don't belive that they should be 50%. That big huge grey area in the middle is where moderation and compromise actually work. Not every political idea will be an easy discussion. And 2A topics wouldn't fit in there well at all. But vast swaths of other topics are very much negotiable.

The problem here is not so much disagreement as it is semantics. We could write pages on what we mean by compromise but I'm guessing you think from what I wrote that I'm against all compromise. My job requires me to compromise frequently when I represent my company, but there are some things I will not compromise on, nor will my company. I asked how a "moderate" views the 2nd Amendment because drawing the lines in that discussion is pretty simple and the lines are pretty bright. The Amendment is short and the meaning is clear. If, for example, your response is that a compromise would be banning high-capacity magazines but no background checks for private sales, that tells me something about what you consider a moderate to be. If you say that some things are principles and can't be compromised, or that a compromise would be lifting the ban on suppressors in return for background checks on private sales, that tells me something different.

A lot of time it seems people labeling themselves this way are really saying --look at me, I'm reasonable, unlike those liberals and conservatives who are just extremists. There are even people on here who call themselves liberals, but in my view, while they may not be conservatives, they're really not liberals --and what separates them from today's version of a liberal is a belief in individual, not "collective" rights. A lot of self-proclaimed "moderates" strike me as just compromisers --people who want to be liked more than they want to be right.

Why does a compromise have to be about popularity? Compromise helped our country form. Do you think all 56 signers of the Decleration were in a unanimous position? They took a bunch of different views about how this whole thing should go and they made a mix that turned out pretty effective. Were there possibly choices that would have been more effective but couldn't get the buy in of everyone? Probably. And rather than scraping the whole deal....they moderated, they compromised, they formed our great country on compromise.

I don't disagree, but I hope my above remarks have clarified my position. However, at the same time, this country was founded on a unique coalescence of intelligent, informed, well educated, and like minded individuals who shared very similar philosophical and religious backgrounds. Even those Founders who weren't religious, like Jefferson, believed in a Creator, and the philosophical underpinnings that stem from such belief. So, not much, if anything, was compromised in the way of principle. Look at this bunch of ignorant self-serving sociopaths ruling over us today. There is no way a government could be created out of a document like our Constitution today. We've even got a Supreme Court justice who says South Africa has a better constitution than ours. Compromise also requires integrity, trust, and honesty by the parties to the compromise. Genuine compromise is impossible now because majority of those in the legislative and executive branches simply can't be trusted.

So if you will, educate me on what it means to be a moderate: specifically, what compromises are you willing to make, in exchange for what, on the 2nd Amendment?

I didn't know that we had so narrowly defined the issue. Originally it was about gay marriage. Compromise would be to live and let live. Judge like you wanna be judged. Give everyone the freedoms we demand for ourselves. No elitism, even in marriage. NRA Life member here. I don't plan to compromise on the 2nd ammendment. I would, however, negotiate buying some bridge to nowhere if it allowed us to fortify our 2A rights further.

I hope my previous remarks clarify why I was so specific. I support the concept of live and let live, and the other planks on your platform, and also am an NRA Life member.