Compromise is what lead to 9-11.

An article points out that both the Founding Fathers AND Ronald Reagan compromised to get stuff done. Freepers disagree:

First, to deal with those who compromised in the past:

RavenATB notes that all founders were Conservative:

True, there was compromise involved in the creation of our nation. But it was not a compromise between liberalism and conservative principles. It was a compromise between two different degrees of conservatism.

Well, suppose Jefferson's Muslim-killing policy counts, but I'm not sure about his black-bedding policy...

wolfpat likes his excuses incomprehensible:

Reagan and the Founding Fathers were playing with losing hands. They managed to win anyway.

RatRipper will not compromise with anyone as evil as liberals:

Compromise is acceptable with points of view that are relevant, pure and wholesome in motive, and grounded in fact.
It is NOT acceptable to compromise with those whose position or methods are based on deceit, those who seek to oppose virtue and honor, or those whose principles have been disproven by repeated failure, culpability in calamity, or discovery of motives known to be sinister.

ZULU noticed that society has progressed since the founding of our country, and doesn't like it one bit!

Patriotic conservatives have been forced to “compromise” themselves FURTHER AND FURTHER TO THE LEFT - FOR YEARS!!

NO MORE!!

DesertRhino laments the countless half loafs Democrats keep getting:

I have never seen a single democrat compromise when they are in charge, or during a divided senate/house.

To them “compromise” consists of making an insane demand. We refuse. They cry until we agree to give them HALF of their demand. (the other half coming next session)
In a true compromise, each side gets something they want, and gives up something they want.

When they pass a new gun law, do they open up BLM and Forest areas they have closed for shooting? When they demand the close of ANWR, do they agree to support the oil sands pipeline, or allow more nuclear?
When they want mandatory healthcare, do they agree that illegal aliens should lose all government benefits?
When they want gay marriage, in exchange do they then agree to allow prayer and invocations at school events again?

No, none of these things happen because the left does not want “compromise”.

Compromise is not a one sided incremental movement towards the position of one side. The old game is over. (big middle finger)

rogue yam knows you only compromise when you've dominated your enemy:

Compromise is what we do once we’ve nominated the most conservative candidates possible, won back the White House and many Congressional seats, and then are debating pending legislation as necessary with whatever is left of the ‘Rat party.

GenXteacher has decided only obstruction from now on:

Compromise is fine when there is nothing to be lost of value; the problem is we are far past the point where compromise leaves our side with anything. Any further compromises are in fact losses, with the end result being something along the lines of atheist Eurotrash socialism or worse...

which is what the incremental program of the progressiviks wants and has been getting. New Deal to Great Society to Obamacare....Abolishing sodomy laws to gay marriage to legal child molestation....

The right has hit the point where obstruction and an absolute “no” are the only worthwhile response short of civil war or outright surrender.

Diogenesis asks and answers his own question:

What does such behavior from RINO amoral individuals bring?