When you have both parties who will not find ways to compromise, who won't meet in the middle, you have paralysis. It's the perversion of idealism.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm interested in why people compromise when they shouldn't. It comes back to what V's about in a sense. We've all got ideals, but given the right circumstances, we'll forget about them and put them behind us. I'm very interested in why people do that.
Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.
Idealism loses to pragmatism when it comes to winning elections.
Anyone driving great social change, willingly or not, is going to be a fascinating contradictory mix of idealism and ego.
Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another - too often ending in the loss of both.
In a relationship, when does the art of compromise become compromising?
It seems to be the fate of idealists to obtain what they have struggled for in a form which destroys their ideals.
So I'm just waiting until one party or the other actually gets a moral compass and a backbone.
I think when a couple stays together, it's because of compromises they've both made.
Sometimes compromise is painful.
No opposing quotes found.