[jerhanner]

How often is it that the middle path is the best way to go? For example, should America nuke the piss out of Iran, or should we just let them have all the nukes they want? Neither. The best answer is somewhere in between. No matter what the devisive issue, the middle path always works.
Abortion? Maybe not totally outlawed, but not free and easy for minors either. Some regulation, some rules, some control.
Banking? Too many regulations hurt growth, but too few encourage what we're living through right now.
Prayer in school? Don't ban it, but don't make it mandatory.

Maybe it's become part of our national psyche that everyone thinks they can have it all their way all the time. Any beginning statistician can tell you that's an impossibility! Compromise is the way to go - and compromise is the feeling that maybe you got scr%wed over, but so did the other guy.

If we Americans don't learn to compromise, what will happen to us? Divide into 3 countries?

[NCC-73515]

Archer: I believe someone once defined a compromise as a solution that neither side is happy with.
Shran: In that case, these talks have been extremely successful.

[jtrek79]

oh man there was a time when i was younger i thought i impregnated my girl,i was so nervous i thought her parents were gonna kill me

[horatio]

I am a big fan of the golden middle, no matter what in life, and as as former chancellor of Germany once said, if you are unable to compromise you don't belong into politics.

It is also important to distinguish the input and output of a decision process, it occurs pretty often that people exaggerate before a decision is done.
For example, three people work together in one room and choose the room temperature by averaging their personal prefered temperatures. Let's say two want 75° F (24° C) and you want 70° (21°). If you know what they want and vote sincerely, all will end up with 73° (23°). But if you exaggerate and say you want 60° (15°), all will end up with your prefered temperature of 70° (21°). Now imagine what happens when the other two are aware of your temperature preferences and also exaggerate to achieve their goal ...

[kevin]

It depends on the matter maybe, I tend to approach things on a case by case basis. For example with your examples, the nuke thing is a dumb double standard that implies it's ok for some to have nuclear weapons because they'll be used by them responsibly, but not by others because they won't - the upshot is no-one should have them. Abortion - I'm on the allow it side thoroughly. Prayer in school - if you want to observe it then yes, if you are not religious then you should be able to sit it out. Banking - well it seems that some more rigid regulation might be required as self-regulation in business is rarely a smart idea.

Like I said, I look at it case by case. Sometimes I take a side, sometimes it takes me down the middle ground.

[jerhanner]

Well yeah, you can take a side! It's just that when it comes down to the nitty gritty you have to be able to allow the other person's side as much credence as yours.

[kevin]

Which is the hard part, obviously, because a lot of the time that's a difficult place to get to. I always try my hardest to see another's point of view and where they are coming from, and usually I can, but sometimes I can't - that's part of life as well. Sometimes you just can't see eye to eye, no matter how hard you give it a go. Then you have to take a side and sometimes that leads to, shall we say....complications!