Let's do away with the misleading term "moderate"

[rightwinger]

Isn't it nice the way "moderates" use a lot of words to say nothing?

Such as?

 

[Moonglow]

Care to cite any examples?

Sure, I'm a MODERATE on minimum wage.

I am pro-minimum wage but consider $15 minimum wage excessive.

Great.

What is the moderate position on a child's Constiutional rights beginning when their life does?

There is none..

 

[Moonglow]

I'll be a moderate and their isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it..

 

[Syriusly]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

Demonstrating once again the the Right believes that no dissent from the program will be tolerated.

 

[AntonToo]

Are you stupid or something? I just explained already.

Here, I'll spell it out for you

HARD LEFT - Abortion legal in all cases.
MODERATE LEFT - Abortion legal, but with some restrictions on late term.
MODERATE RIGHT- Abortion leagal, but only in very early term with some exceptions.
HARD RIGHT - No abortion for any reason.

Do you think a child's rights should begin when their life does?

Yes or no.

If this is what you call "child", then CLEARLY the answer is no - DUH?

So, the moderate position is that a child is not a child until it lives too long and looks too much lime a child to be denied anymore.

Got it.

So, moderates place the onus / burden on the child to reach an arbitrarily decided point before they are entitled to their own Constitutional rights and protections?

Do you know what the definition of fascism is?

What is your malfunction? Why do you keep making straw-men of my position?

I explained to you that I consider person-hood to begin with a minimal higher brain activity, though I believe that Constitution (among other laws we have) never guranteed rights to unborn (which could be generously interpreted as not-viable).

That is not arbitrary at all.

This is why I'm a moderate and you are far-righty, you don't listen and you don't understand opposing position.

A couple of things in my defense that might help explain.

1. I have very poor vision. Among other problems, I am borderline for glaucoma and macular degeneration. Where I used to be able to read and see entire sentences clearly at once, now I can only see a few letters or at most one word at a time as I read.

2. So, I misread some of your early posts which I quoted in bold text. I actually did read it as though you claimed that you supported later abortions and even criminal abortions. . . Because the child aborted has no brain capacity.

3. I have the world's crappiest phone for texting (in my opinion) along with almost useless Wi-Fi, autocorrect from hello and I have to rush everything because of limited time during breaks.

Oh wow, talk about hardships. Sorry for the rough words.

 

[AntonToo]

The constitution absolutely did at inception, abortion was illegal, and it was common law.

Nonsence.

Few issues arouse as much passion as abortion. This has not always been the case, however. Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy.

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

That's exactly what I said...wow mellianials really only read the first sentence. The quickening was when you actually knew you were pregnant, AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, since women were not as healthy back then as they are today, it wasn't uncommon to miss a period (and your body won't let you get pregnant if you do not reach a certain health threshold, which you miss your period). And they didn't really have abortion, it was you drank some poison or a "tonic" and hoped you killed it, without you yourself dying. And it wasn't that it was perfectly legal, you couldn't charge anyone with murder unless you knew they were actually pregnant by going through the quickening, since AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, they didn't have pregnancy tests back then or even a basic knowledge of pregnancy, let alone hormones, sperm, eggs, cells...pretty much any health common knowledge we take for granted today. The law was, when you knew you were pregnant...the quickening...it was murder. What an utter lack of historical awareness, why am I having to explain this too you? You couldn't take a couple steps in critical thinking and figure this out yourself?

That IS NOT what you said, what you said was that abortion was illegal, which is false. You also said that Constitution guaranteed rights at inception which is also false.

You CLAIM that quickening was just a standard based on limited medical understanding, but equally I could say that allowed abortion term would have been LONGER if people understood neurological development better.

But beyond all the could-woulda there is the fact that abortion was legal until child began to move.

 

[sakinago]

The constitution absolutely did at inception, abortion was illegal, and it was common law.

Nonsence.

Few issues arouse as much passion as abortion. This has not always been the case, however. Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy.

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

That's exactly what I said...wow mellianials really only read the first sentence. The quickening was when you actually knew you were pregnant, AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, since women were not as healthy back then as they are today, it wasn't uncommon to miss a period (and your body won't let you get pregnant if you do not reach a certain health threshold, which you miss your period). And they didn't really have abortion, it was you drank some poison or a "tonic" and hoped you killed it, without you yourself dying. And it wasn't that it was perfectly legal, you couldn't charge anyone with murder unless you knew they were actually pregnant by going through the quickening, since AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, they didn't have pregnancy tests back then or even a basic knowledge of pregnancy, let alone hormones, sperm, eggs, cells...pretty much any health common knowledge we take for granted today. The law was, when you knew you were pregnant...the quickening...it was murder. What an utter lack of historical awareness, why am I having to explain this too you? You couldn't take a couple steps in critical thinking and figure this out yourself?

That IS NOT what you said, what you said was that abortion was illegal, which is false. You also said that Constitution guaranteed rights at inception which is also false.

You CLAIM that quickening was just a standard based on limited medical understanding, but equally I could say that allowed abortion term would have been LONGER if people understood neurological development better.

But beyond all the could-woulda there is the fact that abortion was legal until child began to move.

Inception of the constitution, which you're confusing with conception at birth.

And no they would not have, because they clearly drew the line at life, and confirmation of pregnancy. And you know zilch about neurological development. Not to mention it's such an abstract line, that leaves space for debate of Brain damaged victims, severely autistic, mentally retarded, etc. Such a low, and undefined threshold, that is beside the point since we are talking about human life.

Let's say hypothetically a person suffered severe brain damage to the point of being brain dead, would it be appropriate to pull the plug if the doctors told you in 8 months there's an 86% they'll make a full recovery and live a perfectly normal life?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

No, the Democrats did not invent the term moderate.

Yes, the RWnuts think anyone the slightest bit to the left of them is the enemy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the OP considers Reagan a moderate because he sided with the Democrats in 1983 to save Social Security?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

.

You're ridiculing Democrats for opposing Conservatism?

lol. why is that so hilarious to me?

 

[AntonToo]

And no they would not have, because they clearly drew the line at life, and confirmation of pregnancy.

Again, that is FALSE.

The line was drawn at the MOVEMENT of the fetus at around 4th month of pregnancy, which very different then simply confirmation.

 

[sakinago]

And no they would not have, because they clearly drew the line at life, and confirmation of pregnancy.

Again, that is FALSE.

The line was drawn at the MOVEMENT of the fetus at around 4th month of pregnancy, which very different then simply confirmation.

In what way?!? They didn't have ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, hormones, or even a basic understanding of how pregnancy works, let alone microscopes and cells weren't even discovered at this point. All they knew is when I shoot my seed into a women, she MIGHT get pregnant. The only way you knew you were pregnant was when you could feel it. Early miscarriages were common and they would have ZERO clue they were actually pregnant, that still happens TODAY. Missed periods were also common. You weren't actually considered pregnant back then until you felt it, and it was God blessed you with a child. They chalked anything else up to a false alarm. You couldn't prosecute someone if they didn't know if you were pregnant for sure, which was the quickening.

Now you're just making shit up to save your poor point, it wasn't legal, they didn't have the concept of abortion, the only concept that existed was murdering your children, which was considered witchcraft, and Satan worship, using your "God given gift" to create life, so you can pervert it and destroy life. Do you actually believe they'd be ok with any sort of partial witchcraft or Satan worship???? NO THEY WERE NOT. Again a total lack of historical awareness

 

[jwoodie]

Just not impressed. And wishing the adults would show up.

To take care of you? Why don't you describe what a Moderate Party Platform would contain? Kumbaya?

 

[Rustic]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

There is no such thing as a moderate career politician… They are the enemies of the country

 

[Rustic]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats.

What ass did you pull that from?

I consider moderate anyone willing to hear and seriously consider the other side's argument and be willing to settle for compromise.

In other words… you want everyone to think the same in a collective

 

[Mac1958]

Just not impressed. And wishing the adults would show up.

To take care of you? Why don't you describe what a Moderate Party Platform would contain? Kumbaya?

Red states are "taken care of" more than blue states. That canard doesn't fly, even if talk radio keeps selling it.

A moderate party platform isn't set in stone like one from the wings. Obviously. It would be a mix of ideas from both sides.

But I'm sure you and your end have all the answers. That's what both ends tell us, right? That's why it's a majority of the country vs. both ends.
.

 

[jwoodie]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

Oh good. Another purity purge. This time from the right. I am one of those Moderates you detest. I voted Trump in 2016, and Obama before that. But perhaps you can decide for me who I should vote for in the future.

I am pro Second Amendment, and don't believe we need new laws to "control" guns.

I am in favor of a Woman having the right to an Abortion.

I don't think that Abortion should be paid for by the Taxpayers.

I am in favor of a strong military. I think we are losing, actually, that we have already lost the war in Afghanistan.

I support the other amendments outlining our rights with the same dedication as the Second. This means I am opposed to roadside searches by the Police after a dog scratches himself.

I am opposed to Civil Forfeiture.

I am not in favor of trade deals with anyone other than essentially equal economies. NAFTA with Canada would be fine by me, with Mexico not so much, because as we have seen all that happens is offshoring of jobs.

I believe that the Unions can and do provide a needed voice for the workers, and I believe that the same Unions are perpetually in danger of ignoring the workers in favor of power in political arenas.

I believe in States Rights, including the right of the State to decide to refuse voluntary cooperation with Immigration Agents.

I believe the Federal Government can cut off Grants, Grants being gifts, and no gift is ever guaranteed.

I am opposed to the militarization of the Police, and disagree with the policy of giving cops military equipment including fully automatic weapons and armored vehicles.

I am a member of the ACLU and the NRA. I agree with the NRA on the Second Amendment and agree with the ACLU generally speaking on the rest of the Amendments.

By Georgia standards, where I live, I'm pretty liberal. By the standards of San Francisco, I'm a right wing lunatic.

But thanks to your asinine post, I realize that I'm not allowed to believe in all of that. I'm not allowed to think that the Fifth Amendment should prohibit Civil Forfeitures. If I believe we are losing or have essentially lost already in Afghanistan I'm a defeatist.

Here's the secret. The secret that the purity purge folks on the left and yourself don't get. You need us. When we shift left, the Democrats win. When we shift right the Republicans win. Now, you are just as arrogantly wrong as the idiots on the left who scream that we are voting against our interests. Nonsense. We are voting the way we believe our interests line up.

If you are willing to represent those interests, we're willing to vote for you. But make no mistake. You are not doing us a favor by running for office. We're hiring you to do a job, and that job is to represent our interests in Congress, or as President. If you don't do it, we'll find someone who will. We aren't lucky you are willing to take the job, you're lucky if we decide you can be entrusted with it.

The job is Representative. The Politicians who represent their constituents are the ones who get re-elected. The rest of the Republican Party may not feel as adamantly about the issues as you do, but you need them too. Because that "moderate" Republican you denounce is giving you the majority in Congress. Now, if you chase away all the Moderates, you end up back in the Minority, where you can stomp your foot and scream unfair as the Democrats do what the Republicans are doing now.

A Liberal from San Francisco can't get elected in Georgia. But even a moderate Republican, or Democrat from Georgia is too conservative for San Francisco. Different regions have different values, and interests.

We aren't traitors refusing to march in lock step with you. You're probably the one who is out of the mainstream.

So get over yourself, and get off the soapbox and figure out that we have to learn to talk to each other. Find issues that you agree with the majority on, and make some progress there. Don't just pout and stomp your foot like a petulant child and scream that everyone is wrong because they don't think like you do.

Oh, one last thing. Everybody doesn't think like you do. A majority don't even think like you do. That's why Purity Purges are so destructive. You weed out all those who aren't pure enough, and you're left with a handful who do meet the requirements, and then you scream it's not fair that you can't get anything done with ten people in Congress.

Thanks for the primal scream manifesto. Your understanding of the issues you so fervently addressed is a mile wide and an inch deep. For example:

1. You believe in a right to abortion, but don't believe taxpayers should pay for this medical procedure. Why not?

2. You are in favor of a strong military, but don't address how to pay for it.

3. You are opposed to drug searches, but don't address whether drugs should be legal.

4. You are a member of the ACLU, but don't address of violent protests.

It seems to me that your "moderation" is a substitute for taking responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs.

 

[Norman]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

There already is a term to describe those without balls to state their opinion: Cuck.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

Isn't this precious!

Democrats invented the word moderate? LOL

Ever notice you don't see the word DINO. RINO is all over the place and guess who uses it?

How about COMPROMISE? It has become a republican dirty word.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats.

What ass did you pull that from?

I consider moderate anyone willing to hear and seriously consider the other side's argument and be willing to settle for compromise.

In other words… you want everyone to think the same in a collective

Uh no. That's your team. Obey the central hive or else.

And they wonder why we call them dumb