"Greg" wrote in message news:oGgmd.411103$D%.137897@attbi_s51...

Essentially, I agree with you. Butttttttt..... I can't see using the federal
level to achieve the goal. The idea of moderation and everyone compromising
is an idea that I don't think works.


spoken like a conservative, through and through.

compromise and moderation was deliberately designed into the
constitution when it was separated into legislative vs judicial vs
executive branches. it seems the founding fathers were hellbent on
creating a democracy that avoided the pitfalls of monarchies. i'm
sure every king, dictator, stongman in history believed strongly in
their own uncompromising and principled beliefs. if conservatives
were more honest, they would openly advocate amending the constitution
to do away with the rule of law, congressional oversight, dissent and
anything else that smacks of the evils known as moderation and
compromise. the genius of these checks and balances is not so much
putting up with, or tolerating frustating compromises. no, the genius
of a self-moderating and self-compromising system of government set
forth in the constitution is that in the end, it turns out in many
cases, the best course of action for the long run. radicals may hate
the wishy-washy compromises inherent in amercian democracy, but these
days, i thank god for them.












Everyone has a range of items that
offend them, falling under religion, behavior, politics, etc. My impression
of your responses is that via the fed, our country could be melted into a
single compromising entity (correct me if wrong). I don't see people doing
that because most people have core beliefs they won't compromise on. I sure
do. So my approach would be moving the power to the states and lower and at
least allowing people to live in, say counties, that closely match their way
of life. Why should I in conservative north Alabama moderate how someone in
liberal New York city chooses to live?