What I was saying was that by refusing to see any other position but your own and condemning anyone that doesn't wholeheartedly support your viewpoint you create an adversarial situation when you might well gain some support for your cause and advance it faster with a different approach.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful for everyone back in the early to mid 19th century if slavery could have been ended without the bloodshed of the American Civil War? If negotiations between the government and slaveholders could have been conducted and timetables worked out.

And exactly what "timetable" would have been acceptable?

OK guys, at the end of x years, you can be free. In the mean time, GET BACK TO WORK YOU LAZY DARKIES!

Your position seems to be that it would have been better that we kept slavery for x years more, than suffer the trauma of the Civil War. This is certainly perfectly reasonable, unless you had to be a slave for x more years. It is easy to barter other people freedoms away under the premise of "saving lives", especially when it is someone else's freedom.

In fact, that is what the Democrats have been helping the Republicans do since 9/11. Here we can see a prime example of your theory in practice. Both parties worked together, stripped the country of a few freedoms they told us no one would miss, unless your were a terrorist, a terrorist lover, or dark-skinned (which was the same thing as a terrorist or terrorist lover) and we have "avoided another 9/11"

Yippie! Another victory for bi-partisan compromise. Cake and cookies for everyone.

And all that compromise cost us was:

1 million+ dead and maimed Iraqis/Afghanis (and counting)
4100+ dead American soldiers (and counting)
28,000+ maimed Americans soldiers (and counting)
$1 trillion (and counting)
Our standing in the world
Our economy
The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments of the Constitution
Habeus Corpus
The rule of law

Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, our honor, integrity, and for the religious types, our very soul.

When politicians start using words like "pragmatic" and "realistic" you can bet that someone is getting it where the proctologists roam. I was lectured by politicians in Raleigh that it wasn't "realistic" to to require paper ballots, outlaw paperless voting, and require voting machine companies to subject themselves to criminal penalties if they lied about their software.

Yet, that's exactly what the law says today. Why? Because while we always were willing to work with "the opposition" on getting a bill passed that safeguarded voting integrity, we were NOT willing to compromise on those core issues. The reason we got away with such a stance was because:

1) We were absolutely resolute that the issues I outlined would be law.

2) We had cold, hard fact which we used to beat the opposition into submission. We NEVER allowed a lie to go unchallenged and we educated people with the truth at every opportunity.

There is certainly a time for discussion and compromise on issues, but that time expired long, long ago. The opposition is not made up of "reasonable" people, and there is NOTHING to be gained trying to reason with them. We have reached a point in American history were we have to take a stand for what is right. This is not a difference of "opinion", it is a matter of reality.

The GOP has won contest after contest because they have been absolutely inflexible and resolute. Instead of being equally tenacious, our side gives them what they want, and calls it "bi-partisan compromise". Even as the GOP heads toward a historic defeat, they continue to win. There is a clear line between "compromise" and "capitulation", and a very thin line between "capitulation" and "collaboration". Our leaders have crossed both lines, and built a house there.

We will be paying for these various compromises for decades, possibly centuries.

But I'm also a realist and know that our citizens aren't ready to accept civil unions yet, much less gay marriage.

They are unwilling to accept it because our politicians have refused to LEAD. They have refused to educate the public on WHY it is in the best interest of the country to do these things. Instead, they have played to prejudice, encouraged hatred, and elevated lies above truth.

Why?

To get re-elected.

The subtext of many Hagan defenders (in my opinion) is that Hagan DOES support gay marriage, but since she won't get elected if she admits this, she pretend not to support it. Once she is elected, she will change her stand and do what is right.

This is how twisted our morality has become. For the sake of "political realities" I am supposed to support a person who will lie about where they stand, in order to get them elected, so they will (supposedly) push my agenda when safely in office.

Gee, isn't that what Bush did? Convinced a lot of people that he was a moderate, so he could get elected and enact a literally fascist agenda?

And now we must use these same tactics? Why? Because the truth is unpalatable to some people so we have to lie to them, then betray them, then hope they forget the betrayal by the next election?

I sorry, but WHY would I want to vote for such a cynical, amoral/immoral person?

No, I have first hand experience that if you tell the truth, stand by the truth, and refuse to back down from the truth, you WILL prevail.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.