Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass

[Patrick2]

What the heck?

Either we are extreme or we have no foundation in reason?

You DEFINE yourself based on the "extremes" you criticize. Here, let me illustrate with a simple model. Suppose on some kind of scale where "extremism" can be ranked with an integer, let's say the current extremes are leftwing = -6, and rightwing = 2. What is the "moderate" position? m = (-6 + 2) / 2 = -2. Now, suppose the "extremes" shift, so that leftwing = -3, and rightwing = 9. Then m = (-3 + 9) / 2 = 3.

Get it yet? In the above case, "moderates" shifted from -2 to 3, not because they could make the statement

3 is more practical than -2 because________, or

3 is more moral than -2 because________, or

3 is more constitutional than -2 because________,

All they can say is "3 is the new midpoint".

If you were one of the radicals in the Committes of Correspondence early in the american revolution, you would have been an "extremist". "Extremist" is a meaningless defamation term - there is no logical reason to discount an "extreme" position per se, anymore than there is any inherit virtue in a "moderate" position - all such positions must stand or fall based on a reasonable analysis of them, not their relationship to other political positions.

Except "moderate" is not the "midpoint".

"Moderate" is simply not letting the extremes decide issues for you.

I used to be very much Pro-life. To the point that I used to think no one was "pro-choice" anyone that said they were "pro-choice" was in fact a baby killer as surely as if they had performed the abortions themselves and I would get in your face and tell you that you were a murderer if you were Pro-choice. I've moderated tremendously. I've come to realize that the extreme right is as bad, if not worse, than the extreme left. You don't win someone over my calling them a baby killer.

I don't let the extreme right make my decisions on Welfare. I think Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out, but I don't agree with the so called conservative point of view to end all Welfare and let all those welfare mothers go to work or starve.

I have tended away from the extremes not because I don't have core values. I have tended away from the extremes because I don't believe that holding fast and being unwilling to compromise solves the issue. I may not like having to compromise, but if I want fewer abortions, I am not going to win by demanding that we send the mother who has an abortion to prison for 20 years and her doctor with her.

Being moderate is not by any means being a middle-of-the-roader and not standing on ones principles. It is standing on ones principles and defending one's beliefs against those of either side who work against your own beliefs. It is defending one's beliefs on abortion against both those on the right and on the left.

My position does not change because the extremes change. My position only changes because I change. I went from being a Pro-life zealot to someone that realized that I was wrong in my position. I adapted because I was wrong and for no other reason. I don't waiver on the abortion issue. I stand firm in my beliefs, but I also realize that my beliefs do not coincide with people that have no compassion for women in crisis pregnancies nor do they coincide with anyone that would call a human fetus a "clump of cells".

Immie

Of course, my simple metaphor was not intended to suggest that "moderates" are in the arithmetic center. But you basically confirmed what I said, yet again. You say you want to "stay away from the extremes" - that necessarily means that the "extremes" are used to define your position. The "extremes" change with time - therefore you must change your position depending on the position of the "extremes". Your position is thus always dependent on the "extremes". If an "extreme" position happened to be the correct position at a given time. say with the american revolutionaries, you wouldn't go with it merely because it was "extreme".

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno........even that great GOP diety Reagan would be called a RINO today.

The extremists have taken over the party.

 

[Patrick2]

Yanno........even that great GOP diety Reagan would be called a RINO today.

The extremists have taken over the party.

The RINOs are still the GOP establishment, dumbass.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno........even that great GOP diety Reagan would be called a RINO today.

The extremists have taken over the party.

The RINOs are still the GOP establishment, dumbass.

I thought they were called Republicans In Name Only because they acted like liberals, but still kept their GOP affiliations.

Now........if they're going against the basic dogma of your party, how the fuck can they still be the GOP establishment?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Yanno........even that great GOP diety Reagan would be called a RINO today.

The extremists have taken over the party.

The RINOs are still the GOP establishment, dumbass.

Man you're a damn retard, these damn extremists don't even know what RINOs are not, lol.

 

[FactFinder]

What is a moderate? Unlikely to be a Dem or Pub. In my case, (I inagine myself to be mderate) I wouldn't touch either party with a 10 ft pole as they are both a bunch of bluthering idiots.

This one blames Bush and the other blames Obama. Hey look in the freakin mirror at your scorning and bringing the country down. F you! I will vote my conscientious and hope that soemone will rise that is above and beyond the pettiness.

In the meantime I will trust God and not some lame ass political party to see my family through.

 

[Patrick2]

Yanno........even that great GOP diety Reagan would be called a RINO today.

The extremists have taken over the party.

The RINOs are still the GOP establishment, dumbass.

I thought they were called Republicans In Name Only because they acted like liberals, but still kept their GOP affiliations.

Now........if they're going against the basic dogma of your party, how the fuck can they still be the GOP establishment?

Leftwingers need to read up. Conservatives laugh every time some obamabot calls the republican party "the right". There are ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "REPUBLICAN", from people hardly distinguishable from leftwingers to the very few rightwing. To give you half a damn clue: for many decades, the party has been split between "rockefellar republicans" (ie RINOs) and conservatives. The RINOs generally operate to serve corporate interests, but otherwise sign up for almost all of the liberal/left agenda. This is the same reason corporations have become lap kitties of the left - they want to focus on making money, and have made a pact with the devil leftwing that they can continue to do so as long as they support all the leftwing social issues, which they do. In the latest era, the RINOs gained control of the GOP after Reagan left in 1988, and have held power ever since then, although now they have a handful of freshmen representatives, the Tea Party, who will no longer toe the RINO line.

 

[barry1960]

What a bunch of bullshit. So in your world "moderates" are the only thinkers.
Now that is a laugh riot. The very people who have no core values and cannot make a decision without taking a consensus are the THINKERS?
Yeah, right.

I am a moderate. And I have core values.

Next...

The two are incompatible.
One cannot decide by consensus and have core values.
Those values guide us and prohibit wavering on those values.
One cannot claim core values only when it is convenient.
The same for the person who goes to church three times a week and preaches to his neighbors then his other life he a drunken wife beater.
Moderates by definition cannot make up their mind. They look to see which is the popular view on a particular issue and go with that view.
Moderates state they are "open minded"....Bullshit. Open mindedness is another trait which indicates an absence core values.
That is not to say that one cannot change their mind where they stand on an issue or event of the day after careful consideration. That is a good thing It shows the ability to think logically. However that is not what defines a moderate. Moderates cannot think independently. They are go with the crowd or go along to get along type people. Moderates take the path of least resistance.
MOderates stand on the sidelines. They are watchers. Moderates typically will not take a stand and fight for something because typically moderates do not believe in anything. In fact moderates do not bother to question anything for fear of attracting attention to themselves. Moderates fly under the radar. They hide in the shadows waiting for the majority to give them their marching orders. Again, moderates always take the path of least resistance.

That's quite a strawman you have built there.

 

[edthecynic]

The RINOs are still the GOP establishment, dumbass.

I thought they were called Republicans In Name Only because they acted like liberals, but still kept their GOP affiliations.

Now........if they're going against the basic dogma of your party, how the fuck can they still be the GOP establishment?

Leftwingers need to read up. Conservatives laugh every time some obamabot calls the republican party "the right". There are ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "REPUBLICAN", from people hardly distinguishable from leftwingers to the very few rightwing. To give you half a damn clue: for many decades, the party has been split between "rockefellar republicans" (ie RINOs) and conservatives. The RINOs generally operate to serve corporate interests, but otherwise sign up for almost all of the liberal/left agenda. This is the same reason corporations have become lap kitties of the left - they want to focus on making money, and have made a pact with the devil leftwing that they can continue to do so as long as they support all the leftwing social issues, which they do. In the latest era, the RINOs gained control of the GOP after Reagan left in 1988, and have held power ever since then, although now they have a handful of freshmen representatives, the Tea Party, who will no longer toe the RINO line.

Yeah, don't those Lefties know only CON$ can group all Dems into one monolithic group!!!

March 23, 2010
RUSH: Our enemy is now clearly defined. We know who they are and they are anybody with a D beside their name. There's no moderate Democrat. There's no pro-life Democrat. There's no Blue Dog, lap dog, hot dog, back dog Democrat. If it's a D, they are the enemy, and they need to be reacted to as such.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Frank is a troll looking for attention.

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, those one the fringe are the unbalanced ones.

Agreed.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. - Thomas Paine

The simple fact is this country is fairly evenly divided between those on the right and the left as shown by the election results for the past few decades. Accomplishing things in our government requires a steady hand, a clear mind and a willingness to work with others. Especially those with whom one disagrees ideologically.

As the Paine quote states, one can moderate their emotions but still remain true to their principles.

 

[Immanuel]

You DEFINE yourself based on the "extremes" you criticize. Here, let me illustrate with a simple model. Suppose on some kind of scale where "extremism" can be ranked with an integer, let's say the current extremes are leftwing = -6, and rightwing = 2. What is the "moderate" position? m = (-6 + 2) / 2 = -2. Now, suppose the "extremes" shift, so that leftwing = -3, and rightwing = 9. Then m = (-3 + 9) / 2 = 3.

Get it yet? In the above case, "moderates" shifted from -2 to 3, not because they could make the statement

3 is more practical than -2 because________, or

3 is more moral than -2 because________, or

3 is more constitutional than -2 because________,

All they can say is "3 is the new midpoint".

If you were one of the radicals in the Committes of Correspondence early in the american revolution, you would have been an "extremist". "Extremist" is a meaningless defamation term - there is no logical reason to discount an "extreme" position per se, anymore than there is any inherit virtue in a "moderate" position - all such positions must stand or fall based on a reasonable analysis of them, not their relationship to other political positions.

Except "moderate" is not the "midpoint".

"Moderate" is simply not letting the extremes decide issues for you.

I used to be very much Pro-life. To the point that I used to think no one was "pro-choice" anyone that said they were "pro-choice" was in fact a baby killer as surely as if they had performed the abortions themselves and I would get in your face and tell you that you were a murderer if you were Pro-choice. I've moderated tremendously. I've come to realize that the extreme right is as bad, if not worse, than the extreme left. You don't win someone over my calling them a baby killer.

I don't let the extreme right make my decisions on Welfare. I think Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out, but I don't agree with the so called conservative point of view to end all Welfare and let all those welfare mothers go to work or starve.

I have tended away from the extremes not because I don't have core values. I have tended away from the extremes because I don't believe that holding fast and being unwilling to compromise solves the issue. I may not like having to compromise, but if I want fewer abortions, I am not going to win by demanding that we send the mother who has an abortion to prison for 20 years and her doctor with her.

Being moderate is not by any means being a middle-of-the-roader and not standing on ones principles. It is standing on ones principles and defending one's beliefs against those of either side who work against your own beliefs. It is defending one's beliefs on abortion against both those on the right and on the left.

My position does not change because the extremes change. My position only changes because I change. I went from being a Pro-life zealot to someone that realized that I was wrong in my position. I adapted because I was wrong and for no other reason. I don't waiver on the abortion issue. I stand firm in my beliefs, but I also realize that my beliefs do not coincide with people that have no compassion for women in crisis pregnancies nor do they coincide with anyone that would call a human fetus a "clump of cells".

Immie

Of course, my simple metaphor was not intended to suggest that "moderates" are in the arithmetic center. But you basically confirmed what I said, yet again. You say you want to "stay away from the extremes" - that necessarily means that the "extremes" are used to define your position. The "extremes" change with time - therefore you must change your position depending on the position of the "extremes". Your position is thus always dependent on the "extremes". If an "extreme" position happened to be the correct position at a given time. say with the american revolutionaries, you wouldn't go with it merely because it was "extreme".

No, my position generally stays the same. I don't move away from the right wing extremist simply because they change their position. Take the abortion issue for instance, if the right wing extremist move closer to me, I am not going to move farther left just to avoid them. I'll hold my ground. If they join with me, that is superb. Hell, if the left wing extremist move right and join with me that is equally superb.

I generally waver very little in my beliefs. What I don't do is let either wing tell me what I have to or cannot believe.

Immie

 

[Divine Wind]

"Moderate" is simply not letting the extremes decide issues for you.

Agreed 100%. Extremists seek to bully moderates to their way of thinking.

As the article below mentions, even our finest Americans are moving away from political parties for an obvious reason: disgust with the extremism growing within the parties.

Survey: Troops shift political parties - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

An exclusive survey of some 1,800 active-duty troops shows the percentage of self-identified Republicans has decreased by one-third since 2004, from 60 percent to 41 percent, while the percentage of self-identified independents has nearly doubled to 32 percent during the same period.

The RWNJs and LWLs can rant all they want, but intelligent people will still recognize the truth of the matter; we're all Americans and we need to work with one another in order to make our nation better.

 

[editec]

All this chest pounding ASCII fails to impress me.

What many of our resident self proclaiming radicals fail to understand is that one can be as radically moderate as one can be radically left or right.

In fact, in this political environment, one where the clueless radicals DUPES have taken over the debates, one really often has no choice.

Nobody's going to be kissing anybody's ass, today,

 

[BoycottTheday]

in my opinion you can either be a capitalist or a socialist.

You cant be in the middle of that debate.

Thats my problem with anyone who says they are moderate.

Now Moderate of what, the two political parties?

Shirley, thats possible, butt

how can you be a moderate between capitalism or socialism?

Thats the gray area that has no soul imho.

 

[Immanuel]

in my opinion you can either be a capitalist or a socialist.

You cant be in the middle of that debate.

Thats my problem with anyone who says they are moderate.

Now Moderate of what, the two political parties?

Shirley, thats possible, butt

how can you be a moderate between capitalism or socialism?

Thats the gray area that has no soul imho.

In my humble opinion you are wrong and here is a brief reason why I think so.

A pure Capitalist believes in the free running system where there are no checks and balances at all. Let the corporations do as they damned well please because the free market will prevent them from doing anything really harmful to the people.

The socialist believes in having the people (through the government) control the means of production and distribution.

Neither one of these is good for the people. Pure Capitalism would be a disaster as would pure socialism. Our economy has always been somewhere along the continuum between the two and prayerfully always will.

Immie

 

[BoycottTheday]

[

In my humble opinion you are wrong and here is a brief reason why I think so.

A pure Capitalist believes in the free running system where there are no checks and balances at all.

Thats not true, a govt exists to level the playing field for all,

and not allow crony capitalism to favour say GE over me.

So your statement is without merit.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

All this chest pounding ASCII fails to impress me.

What many of our resident self proclaiming radicals fail to understand is that one can be as radically moderate as one can be radically left or right.

In fact, in this political environment, one where the clueless radicals DUPES have taken over the debates, one really often has no choice.

Nobody's going to be kissing anybody's ass, today,

Tell that to Obama, lol.

 

[Divine Wind]

Pure Capitalism would be a disaster as would pure socialism. Our economy has always been somewhere along the continuum between the two and prayerfully always will.

Agreed. Capitalism helped build this nation into one of the richest, most powerful in the world. As our history shows, if taken to excess, capitalism can be bad too.

Robber Barons.

The Yankee Trader maxim of caveat emptor.

Child labor

Company towns

Debtors Prisons


Unrestrained capitalism becomes just another form of dictatorship the same as unrestrained government.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Child labor

Company towns

Debtors Prisons


.

Those are examples of injustice, i have no problem with any govt denying injustice.

Since when has capitalism said the govt should not have courts or laws to protect its citiZens from other citiZens?

Liberals have declared a war on aMerican exceptionalism, you can deny that butt we know its true.

So, to the victor goes the spoils, i have no doubts who will win.

God willing.