On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
I don't understand why some people think that, because they can *think* mean things and/or *say* mean things about X, then they are not compromising with X. Where X may be Obama, the Democrats, U.S. imperialism, etc.
A "compromise," by definition, involves two parties each of whom makes some concession in order to arrive at a common position. When someone, allegedly radical, supports Obama--or the "Syrian National Coalition" proclaimed by the Saudis, the Emirates, the French, and Clinton as the "Sole Legitimate Representative of the Syrian people" in order to paste a "humanitarian" figleaf on their ongoing and soon to be intensified intervention in the Syrian civil war--that person has made no compromise because neither Obama nor the feudalist- salafist-imperialist coalition has made any concession whatsoever to him.
But by supporting Obama or the feudalist-salafist-imperialist coalition that person would have compromised *himself* very deeply, if not irremediably.
Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
