Can talking heads be civil?

[Annie]

I think any humane person who is not 100% anti-abortion feels that way.

NARAL doesn't feel that way.

 

[mattskramer]

The real question here is, do you support a party that attempts to enlarge government or tries to make it smaller?

Has the government grown under the Republican administration? I think that the government should be made smaller, but I doubt that the Republicans would support my ideas on how to reduce the size of government. For one example, I think the vice squad should be reduced.

The real question here is do you support a party that attempts to lessen taxes on your paycheck or one that wants to take an ever-increasing amount from your paycheck?

I think that I am paying a my fair share in taxes. It depends on what the tax is spent on. - corporate welfare, pork, excessive amounts on national defense, personal welfare, etc. It also depends on how much the "rich" and "poor" are taxed with respect to each other. For me, many variables come into play.

The real question here is not about the exceptions to the rule. The question should be do you support a party that is pro-abortion or anti-abortion for the majority of women?

I think that abortion should be illegal except in cases where the mother's health is at risk. I am undecided about whether or not it should be made illegal in cases of rape and incest. Where does that reply place me?

When you say you are a "moderate" that really has no meaning and it's basically a cop out because there is no "moderate" political party in our country. We have a two party system: Democrats and Republicans. Anything else is a waste of your vote.

No. It is a sensible approach to counter the extremism and mind-numbing political rhetoric that comes from the right and from the left. Didn't an independent become a state governor? Anyway, I understand that if you don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican, your vote may "not count". I carefully consider the issues and vote in local, state, and federal elections. When it came to deciding on a president, Bush won my vote, but not by much. I often wonder if I made the right choice.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Coat hangers in dark alleys are pretty much a scare tactic from the left.

Today a girl getting pregnant does not carry the scorn that it did before. A young woman can go about her life pretty much as usual, have the baby, and then have it adopted. Hopefully she will have learned her lesson and be more careful the next time.

Libs are pro-abortion because they have no respect for life.
It really has nothing to do with poor pregnant girls.

I debate this internally all the time. I feel slimy right now. I don't know. I'm torn.

 

[mattskramer]

Speaking for myself, I have not carefully reviewed the Patriot Act and all of the facets of the WOT. I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified. I think that the war in Iraq was not justified. In summary I think that we needed to go to "war" against terrorism, but I am ambivalent about the way it is being waged.

 

[Annie]

Speaking for myself, I have not carefully reviewed the Patriot Act and all of the facets of the WOT. I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified. I think that the war in Iraq was not justified. In summary I think that we needed to go to "war" against terrorism, but I am ambivalent about the way it is being waged.

So why do you think it NOT JUSTIFIED or NOT WAGED CORRECTLY?

 

[Nuc]

Speaking for myself, I have not carefully reviewed the Patriot Act and all of the facets of the WOT. I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified. I think that the war in Iraq was not justified. In summary I think that we needed to go to "war" against terrorism, but I am ambivalent about the way it is being waged.

eeder yer fer us or yer agin us! is you a traitor or not?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

.

The real question here is, do you support a party that attempts to enlarge government or tries to make it smaller?

Has the government grown under the Republican administration? I think that the government should be made smaller, but I doubt that the Republicans would support my ideas on how to reduce the size of government. For one example, I think the vice squad should be reduced.

Yes it has. Republicans are certainly more liberal than they let on. But at least there is some some hope among them. Can you say the same for the Democrats? I think not.

The real question here is do you support a party that attempts to lessen taxes on your paycheck or one that wants to take an ever-increasing amount from your paycheck?

I think that I am paying a my fair share in taxes. It depends on what the tax is spent on. - corporate welfare, pork, excessive amounts on national defense, personal welfare, etc. It also depends on how much the "rich" and "poor" are taxed with respect to each other. For me, many variables come into play.

But the Democrats don’t think you are really paying your fair share - they want to increase your taxes - and basically make everyone dependent upon the state including big business. The spending of our tax money is another issue altogether.

The real question here is not about the exceptions to the rule. The question should be do you support a party that is pro-abortion or anti-abortion for the majority of women?

I think that abortion should be illegal except in cases where the mother's health is at risk. I am undecided about whether or not it should be made illegal in cases of rape and incest. Where does that reply place me?

I think it places you squarely in the Republican party. There are many who agree with you about the exceptions such as the mother's health, rape and incest.

When you say you are a "moderate" that really has no meaning and it's basically a cop out because there is no "moderate" political party in our country. We have a two party system: Democrats and Republicans. Anything else is a waste of your vote.

No. It is a sensible approach to counter the extremism and mind-numbing political rhetoric that comes from the right and from the left. Didn't an independent become a state governor? Anyway, I understand that if you don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican, your vote may "not count". I carefully consider the issues and vote in local, state, and federal elections. When it came to deciding on a president, Bush won my vote, but not by much. I often wonder if I made the right choice.

Sometimes I've wondered the same thing. But let's get real - it almost always comes down to a choice between the two major parties. Nothing wrong with calling yourself an independent or moderate or whatever.
I am all for creating better platforms and influencing the debate.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I debate this internally all the time. I feel slimy right now. I don't know. I'm torn.

There will always be someone hurt somewhere sometime for some reason. Nothing is perfect in this world.

Just think of which ideology is promoting this barbaric procedure and why.

 

[mattskramer]

So why do you think it NOT JUSTIFIED or NOT WAGED CORRECTLY?

There were no weapons of mass destruction - or any weapons of any great significance for that matter. There was no definitive link between Al Queso and Saddam - oh, we found the 1 guy who happened to be in Iraq, but to say that Saddam had close ties with Al Queso is a stretch. There was no immanent threat to America from Iraq. Oh. Saddam was a bad dictator. Well, North Korea and China have evil dictators too and they pose a greater threat to the USA than did Saddam's sandcastle. What Iraq did provide was a way for Bush to settle a score for his Daddy, a way for the VP to help out his old buddies at Halburton, and to get a name for himself as the "wartime president".

Ok. We did get rid of a bad dictator. Still, all things considered, I simply don't think it was worth the time and money spent. We should have continued our search for Bin Laden. We should have used our resources to strengthen our intelligence, gathered more "proof" that there was a link, WMD, a major threat, etc. and then presented honest and irrefutable proof before the UN. Then, with world support, we could have invaded Iraq more easily.

 

[dilloduck]

There were no weapons of mass destruction - or any weapons of any great significance for that matter. There was no definitive link between Al Queso and Saddam - oh, we found the 1 guy who happened to be in Iraq, but to say that Saddam had close ties with Al Queso is a stretch. There was no immanent threat to America from Iraq. Oh. Saddam was a bad dictator. Well, North Korea and China have evil dictators too and they pose a greater threat to the USA than did Saddam's sandcastle. What Iraq did provide was a way for Bush to settle a score for his Daddy, a way for the VP to help out his old buddies at Halburton, and to get a name for himself as the "wartime president".

Ok. We did get rid of a bad dictator. Still, all things considered, I simply don't think it was worth the time and money spent. We should have continued our search for Bin Laden. We should have used our resources to strengthen our intelligence, gathered more "proof" that there was a link, WMD, a major threat, etc. and then presented honest and irrefutable proof before the UN. Then, with world support, we could have invaded Iraq more easily.

and then we get bin laden to call off the war and everyone goes home to thier families--damn why didnt I think of that?

 

[William Joyce]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Comments - please.

MSK, you may be interested to discover an alternative perspective, which is that of "paleoconservatives" or traditional conservatives, who do not support the war in Iraq because it is done for Israel, not America. The "neocons" want war for Israel's sake, but are not true conservatives because they put the interests of another nation before ours.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

And yes, this does have to do partly with Jews, but if you keep an open mind, it isn't so freaky!

 

[Bonnie]

Yep. I have nuts and I take a stand as a moderate.

The problem is Matt that many Liberals have defined extremism in our country as those everyday middleclass people that don't want their children to be taught sexual deviance in schools, not to have abortions and especially not without their knowledge or permission, to maybe even teach their children from home, who attend church or service on Sunday's, who would rather their kids have some modicum of morality growing up, who don't wish to be taxed to death, who may have a flag posted on their porches, who do not see homosexuality as perfectly normal and have the audacity to say so, who believe that civil servants should be guided by a higher morality than just the law but instead make good law based on their moral fibre, who don't think religious symbols should be completely abolished from public viewing, who don't want socialism, who do think fighting back when your country is attacked without provacation is sometimes necessary, and, even support a president who has the guts to not care what France thinks, who think the UN is corrupt and should be fumigated, who want the colleges their kids go to and they pay for to grant freedom of speech to yes even Conservatives and offer both points of view not just liberal ones, and who are just plain tired of being called extremist for absoutely no merit.

 

[Nuc]

People,

Matt has posted an intelligent thread and followed up with a lot of thoughtful and insightful commentary. But his rep has stayed the same throughout. Where's the love?

 

[musicman]

People,

Matt has posted an intelligent thread and followed up with a lot of thoughtful and insightful commentary. But his rep has stayed the same throughout. Where's the love?

Mind your own business - THAT'S where.

Don't be telling veteran board members how to use their rep power, or they might just use it on YOU.

 

[manu1959]

the talking heads were totally civil....david byrne was a genius....phsyco killer

 

[mattskramer]

Mind your own business - THAT'S where.

Don't be telling veteran board members how to use their rep power, or they might just use it on YOU.

I don't even know what "Rep Power" is. What is it? Hmmm. Is there a double standard here? Oh well. I don't really care.

 

[Bonnie]

I don't even know what "Rep Power" is. What is it? Hmmm. Is there a double standard here? Oh well. I don't really care.

It doesn't really matter Matt but so you know.. you will continue to get good rep points for maintaining good arguments or opinions presented in a civil way as you have been doing

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My philosophy on rep points is totally different. I give them strictly for exhibiting the correct thinking and being concise.

And as mattys thinking seems to be infected with wishy washy-ism, he gets zip. He seems to believe it wrong to have strong opinions.

 

[mattskramer]

It doesn't really matter Matt but so you know.. you will continue to get good rep points for maintaining good arguments or opinions presented in a civil way as you have been doing

Wow. Thanks. I think that we can agree to disagree without being terribly disagreeable.

 

[mattskramer]

My philosophy on rep points is totally different. I give them strictly for exhibiting the correct thinking and being concise.

And as mattys thinking seems to be infected with wishy washy-ism, he gets zip. He seems to believe it wrong to have strong opinions.

I have strong opinions. One strong opinion is that it is good to be a moderate.