Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass

[Immanuel]

Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any doubt that without our government, businesses would prefer to lock up people who don't pay their debts?

Child labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenty of doubt and why would anyone use a source that allows someone like me to edit the material, are you now sure it still says what it did say?

Excellent point. I did some research a while back. I went to wiki to confirm some data. It stated the opposite. I then went to the source they allegedly used to find they said no such thing.

Wiki should never be used to prove a point. The good thing about Wiki is that it can help to point you in a direction you had not thought of. For instance if you are looking up information on Rick Perry's career it can lead you to information you had no knowledge of like his stance on Texas secession. A major sticking point for me regarding his campaign.

Don't trust it, but use it as a tool.

Immie

 

[BoycottTheday]

Excellent point. I did some research a while back. I went to wiki to confirm some data. It stated the opposite. I then went to the source they allegedly used to find they said no such thing.

I wonder if D.W. will notice what i re-edited

 

[Patrick2]

Thanks for the apology and the good discussion.

Actually, where I think you misunderstand is that what I was saying was that I once thought that I was what I would consider to be an extremist. Then I started examining what the extremists on my side of the issue said and I realized that what they said/did was not me.

If you disagree with "extremists" because of what they say on an issue, then your disagreement is founded on the substance of their positions, not ipso facto because they are "extreme".

The issue that I had with your point of view was that I believe you stated that moderates have no conviction

We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

I guess we just have to accept your point of view (incorrect as it is) that moderates cannot be consistent or principled without any proof, just your own ascertains.

Is that really your stance?

Immie

The only way the position of a "moderate" can be principled is if he makes the (somewhat logically dgenerate) claim that "my only principle is that my political positions should be moderate".

 

[Divine Wind]

Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any doubt that without our government, businesses would prefer to lock up people who don't pay their debts?

Child labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenty of doubt and why would anyone use a source that allows someone like me to edit the material, are you now sure it still says what it did say?

The best way to verify the veracity of an article on Wiki is the linked references. The more the better. In the case of simple history like Debtor's prisons and child labor, it's pretty common knowledge among those who studied history in high school. Well, high school in my day. I'm not so sure about these days.

 

[Immanuel]

If you disagree with "extremists" because of what they say on an issue, then your disagreement is founded on the substance of their positions, not ipso facto because they are "extreme".



We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

I guess we just have to accept your point of view (incorrect as it is) that moderates cannot be consistent or principled without any proof, just your own ascertains.

Is that really your stance?

Immie

The only way the position of a "moderate" can be principled is if he makes the (somewhat logically dgenerate) claim that "my only principle is that my political positions should be moderate".

You are absolutely wrong on that.

A principled stand is one taken based upon the principles and beliefs of a person. I have taken my stand on certain issues based upon my principles and beliefs.

A political moderate is a person that does not necessarily accept the views of either extreme.

Moderate | Define Moderate at Dictionary.com

mod·er·ate
   [adj., n. mod-er-it, mod-rit; v. mod-uh-reyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
–adjective
1.
kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2.
of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.
3.
mediocre or fair: moderate talent.
4.
calm or mild, as of the weather.
5.
of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.
–noun
6.
a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.
7.
( usually initial capital letter ) a member of a political party advocating moderate reform.
–verb (used with object)
8.
to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
9.
to preside over or at (a public forum, meeting, discussion, etc.).
–verb (used without object)
10.
to become less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.
11.
to act as moderator; preside

Noting in that definition excludes principles or convictions. In fact #1, is key with the idea of keeping within reasonable limits.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Gotta run for now Patrick. Thanks for the discussion even though I think you are a) either very whacky b) yanking my chain or c) both.

Catch ya later.

Immie

 

[Patrick2]

I guess we just have to accept your point of view (incorrect as it is) that moderates cannot be consistent or principled without any proof, just your own ascertains.

Is that really your stance?

Immie

The only way the position of a "moderate" can be principled is if he makes the (somewhat logically dgenerate) claim that "my only principle is that my political positions should be moderate".

You are absolutely wrong on that.

A principled stand is one taken based upon the principles and beliefs of a person. I have taken my stand on certain issues based upon my principles and beliefs.

A political moderate is a person that does not necessarily accept the views of either extreme.

Moderate | Define Moderate at Dictionary.com

mod·er·ate
   [adj., n. mod-er-it, mod-rit; v. mod-uh-reyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
–adjective
1.
kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2.
of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.
3.
mediocre or fair: moderate talent.
4.
calm or mild, as of the weather.
5.
of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.
–noun
6.
a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.
7.
( usually initial capital letter ) a member of a political party advocating moderate reform.
–verb (used with object)
8.
to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
9.
to preside over or at (a public forum, meeting, discussion, etc.).
–verb (used without object)
10.
to become less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.
11.
to act as moderator; preside

Noting in that definition excludes principles or convictions. In fact #1, is key with the idea of keeping within reasonable limits.

Immie

NONE of the definitions includes anything about principles, because choosing your position CANNOT be BOTH based on principles AND because the position is "moderate" - the two are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You yourself even reiterate with your last statement that the only principle a moderate can have is that "moderation" itself is the "principle".

 

[jgarden]

Rather than addressing these annoying fuckers one at a time, let me make a blanket statement: If you're a political "Moderate" in 2011, you're either lying or a fucking moron.

The Government has control over every aspect of your life including your health, Social Security is totally broke, Congress shamelessly racks up annual trillion deficits like it was nothing and even though they did it for the wrong reasons, S&P Downgraded our credit.

If you can face that and say "Gee, I dunno if that's bad" you're either a Jake Starkey lying liberal or a moron.

There is no third option

Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass - isn't that an illegal act in some states.

Is "CrusaderFrank" councilling members of this forum to indulge in illegal behavior?

 

[jgarden]

Rather than addressing these annoying fuckers one at a time, let me make a blanket statement: If you're a political "Moderate" in 2011, you're either lying or a fucking moron.

The Government has control over every aspect of your life including your health, Social Security is totally broke, Congress shamelessly racks up annual trillion deficits like it was nothing and even though they did it for the wrong reasons, S&P Downgraded our credit.

If you can face that and say "Gee, I dunno if that's bad" you're either a Jake Starkey lying liberal or a moron.

There is no third option

"Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass" - is that still an illegal act in some states or in the military?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Moderates are insecure cowards for the most part. They're just so terrified they may be criticized for their stances on issues. Therefore they try to have it both ways all the time. Taking a stand is difficult and requires a backbone. "Moderates" just need to be liked. I cannot trust them.

 

[Divine Wind]

Moderates are insecure cowards for the most part. They're just so terrified they may be criticized for their stances on issues. Therefore they try to have it both ways all the time. Taking a stand is difficult and requires a backbone. "Moderates" just need to be liked. I cannot trust them.

Dude, in case you just missed it, moderates take the most shots of any group since they catch it from both sides of the extremist loony crowd.

If there is cowardice, then it is those who are so extreme they back themselves into a corner and just shout hateful remarks out into the room. You know, just like yours.

 

[bripat9643]

De Niel is not just a river in Egypt.


Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any doubt that without our government, businesses would prefer to lock up people who don't pay their debts?

Only the government can lock you up, so how are businesses going to lock anyone up without the government?

What does debtors prison or child labor have to do with anything under discussion in this thread?

 

[Divine Wind]

Only the government can lock you up, so how are businesses going to lock anyone up without the government?

They use government as a tool as in a company town.

The topic was broached as a response that moderation is needed in both politics and business. If either Republican or Democrat ideology completely dominated our nation, it'd be a nightmare. It's the balance of those ideologies that allows us to maximize the best of both.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

You're completely wrong and I think you don't even know it. Who knows, you might be so extreme that you do but from your post, I doubt it.
I am a business owner and very definitely a capitalist. But guess what? There are a lot of social programs I support.
* As a former vet, I support the VA and VA Hospitals - you don't? Not much a of a troop supporter, eh? Or is it that you're a least a little bit of a socialist
See, those are social programs that are not specified in the Constitution and do not provide for the defense. We provide them because it's the right thing to do for those who have served in uniform.
* Services for the blind. Whether provided by the state (which I believe to be more efficient locally) or the Fed (which I find necessary only so they don't have to worry about things being different from one state to another), I think it's good that we spend the money on those little chirping sounds you probably never notice when you cross a street. Now maybe you would just as soon they all get ran over and reduce our need to pay out that pesky SSI when they live long enough to collect it but I think it's swell. That's another social program. The government doing something for the welfare of the people simply because it's the right thing to do.

Shall I go on, or do you get the idea? We have always been both capitalist and socialists. This is a good thing. So yes, you can be both.

As far as the asinine posts about Moderates being mathmatically in the "Middle Ground" , lacking passion, changing their minds with the wind and other completel stupidity, it's more dribble fed to the masses, in order to convince those Right Wing Whackjobs that anyone who is strong enough to think for themselves, is not as strong as the mindless drones who let others do their thinking for them.
Independents and Moderates can feel very passionately about a variety of views, without those views every changing. For example, I have always had strong, negative views about unions. They haven't changed in 30 years. I have always had strong positive views about government run health care. They haven't changed in 30 years. But because I'm not a mindless drone whose every opinion follows the Conservative view like a good little sheeple, The Conservs will try to label me as the weak one.
The reason I bring up the Conservs is that there has been an active campaign by FOX and Conservative media to project this viewpoint (Notice you don't see Liberals spewing this gibberish - they tend to be more free-thinking). I don't think you fall into this category as you haven't labeled all people not agreeing with the ideology that FOX has stamped "approved" but obviously it is working as it has already started being regurgitated by the weak-minded fools like CrudaderFrank.

 

[Patrick2]

My assertion remains unrefuted, and for most the "moderates" posting here, not even confronted - the political positions of "moderates" are an unprincipled grab-bag of ideas that are frequently incoherent, inconsistent, and even irrational, and their use of the word "extreme" and it's variants is a defamatory term of art for the less stupid ones, and simply an idiocy for the more dumb ones.

 

[IndependntLogic]

My assertion remains unrefuted, and for most the "moderates" posting here, not even confronted - the political positions of "moderates" are an unprincipled grab-bag of ideas that are frequently incoherent, inconsistent, and even irrational, and their use of the word "extreme" and it's variants is a defamatory term of art for the less stupid ones, and simply an idiocy for the more dumb ones.

Well Patrick, either one of two things is true:

1. That's just as stupid as anything that's ever been posted and complete bullshit or
2. You can cite examples where Moderates and Independents have changed their opinions based on "the shifting of the wind" and that other driblle you spew.

I'd bet on 1. I mean, I've changed my mind quite a bit about the Tea Party and it's members, since gaining first hand knowledge and insight from members (as opposed to only MSM) but that is definitely not what you refer to. So let's see it. Show me that you're not just another sheeple who has been told by FOX that "anyone not completely Conservative, is wrong or stupid or unprincipled or..." and you're now convinced of it, only because your thought masters tell you so. Show me your evidence so that I may know you're not just pulling this out of your ass.

A total sheeple would now:
1. Dodge or make excuses
2. Change the subject
3. Insult and use Moral Comparative
4. Cut & Run

 

[Middleoftheroad]

The issue that I had with your point of view was that I believe you stated that moderates have no conviction

We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

I agree with you that moderates do have conviction in this country. Our country has going steadily for the last 100 years towards left wing totalitarianism, clearly the "moderate" is left. They want the same things the left want, they just want to slow it down. Even right of center Republicans support preserving and expanding welfare programs like Social Security. The moderates just say slow down a bit to the left and then think to themselves how they're "reasonable." But when you're on a railroad track only changing your speed, you will at some point arrive in the same station.

simply put, wrong.
Speaking as a moderate, my personal beliefs is that the government should keep spending at around 18-20%. This is not a temporary view, it is a long term view that I have always had. This basically means that the government can't get any bigger then it already is.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

If you disagree with "extremists" because of what they say on an issue, then your disagreement is founded on the substance of their positions, not ipso facto because they are "extreme".



We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

I guess we just have to accept your point of view (incorrect as it is) that moderates cannot be consistent or principled without any proof, just your own ascertains.

Is that really your stance?

Immie

The only way the position of a "moderate" can be principled is if he makes the (somewhat logically dgenerate) claim that "my only principle is that my political positions should be moderate".

this is simply because you don't know what it means to be a moderate, you are using your own personal definition of a moderate, which includes many fallacies.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The true moderates are libertarians.

Left: Let's confiscate more money and redistribute it and increase government control over our lives...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Right: Let's crack down on making people's choices for them over their bodies and increase the War on Drugs, violation of privacy, preventing abortions...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Anyone who is going along with the left or right and just slowing them down isn't "moderate." Challenging government to back down when they already far exceed the Constitution is moderate.

Okay now this is a really strong post. So let's try some of that debate thing. I've learned a LOT about Libertarians since coming here (to learn about Tea Partiers). I have come to appreciate a lot of your views but guess what? I still disagree with some of your views or the degree to which you would implement them. Let's use your format:

Libertarians: If we just leave companies alone, they will all become honest, ethical, fair to employees and produce only safe products. If they don't, the Magical Market will make them disappear.

Independents: The existence of 99 of the Fortune 100 companies contradicts that. Although we would reduce government a lot (I personally, would completely eliminate over 2 dozen fed agencies), we still feel that there are a lot of areas where federal government "intereference" is a good thing. Although we recognize government is almost never as efficient as the private sector, we realize that sometimes it is the best alternative.

 

[kaz]

We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

I agree with you that moderates do have conviction in this country. Our country has going steadily for the last 100 years towards left wing totalitarianism, clearly the "moderate" is left. They want the same things the left want, they just want to slow it down. Even right of center Republicans support preserving and expanding welfare programs like Social Security. The moderates just say slow down a bit to the left and then think to themselves how they're "reasonable." But when you're on a railroad track only changing your speed, you will at some point arrive in the same station.

simply put, wrong.
Speaking as a moderate, my personal beliefs is that the government should keep spending at around 18-20%. This is not a temporary view, it is a long term view that I have always had. This basically means that the government can't get any bigger then it already is.

Right now we're at 25% on a cash basis. With unfunded liabilities it's far higher then that and has been for a long time and we're printing money like crazy which isn't counted either and should be. Unfunded liabilities and printing money are the primary ways the left has continually moved us to the left with socialist dependency programs like Social Security and Medicare. They commit us to socialism and the moderates are silent because cash expenditures don't sound as high as what we've committed ourselves to. Then one day the actual bills come...and it's too late...

A moderate who practiced what you preach would be hysterical right now and think the tea party's not going far enough because we are way, way past 18-20% in real spending and it's going up not down.