Head Count
- Thread starter BDBoop
- Start date
007
Charter Member
Oh. Honey.No.
You'll know it when you see it. I haven't melted here in a VERY long time.
Oh yes you are... snookie...
No. Actually my definition of 'moderate' is one who is clueless, wishy washy, without conviction, nebulous, or unwilling to take a stand or fight for anything.
But as a modern day conservative, or more precisely a classical liberal--you didn't give us an option for that one
--I am quite sure my definition of conservative would be very different from your definition of conservative. Ditto my definition of liberal.BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #266
No. Actually my definition of 'moderate' is one who is clueless, wishy washy, without conviction, nebulous, or unwilling to take a stand or fight for anything.
But as a modern day conservative, or more precisely a classical liberal--you didn't give us an option for that one
I'm thinking you missed my point. There are fringers on both sides of the median, very hard left or right, calling themselves just plain left or right.
No. Actually my definition of 'moderate' is one who is clueless, wishy washy, without conviction, nebulous, or unwilling to take a stand or fight for anything.
But as a modern day conservative, or more precisely a classical liberal--you didn't give us an option for that one
I'm thinking you missed my point. There are fringers on both sides of the median, very hard left or right, calling themselves just plain left or right.
Exactly. Because they define that differently than you or I would and you and I would likely disagree on the definitions too.
bobcollum
Rookie
Last edited:
Or someone that realizes that compromise is essential to moving beyond common differences.
The founders were all classical liberals to a man. But they had strong differences of opinion on numerous critical issues. It took them eight long years to work those out and arrive at a compromise that allowed us to have our Constitution.
Conservatives or intelligent liberals are quite capable of compromise when it is in whatever's best interest to do so. That's where bipartisan votes come from in Congress.
But those who compromise just to say they got something done however ineffective or destructive it might be, or those who wait to see how the political winds are blowing before taking a stand, will never be ones I can commend, admire, or would aspire to emulate.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Resolving "common differences" in politics is just like trying to accomodate vegetarian family members at Thanksgiving.. A lot of food, money and time is wasted, nobody is really happy, and there's way too much lecturing involved..
You make it sound like "our differences" are a matter of picking a carpet color for the living room..
Last edited:
#1: There are fiscal and social scales, not one scale.
#2: You left out libertarians, there are a lot of us on the board. Though had you covered #1 you'd have given us an answer other then "other."
I'm fiscally far right, much farther then the Republican party (e.g., support elimination of all federal welfare, including social security and Medicare), and socially far left, much further then the Democratic party (e.g., pro-choice but also support legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, ...). As I said, libertarian.
Resolving "common differences" in politics is just like trying to accomodate vegetarian family members at Thanksgiving.. A lot of food, money and time is wasted, nobody is really happy, and there's way too much lecturing involved..
You make it sound like "our differences" are a matter of picking a carpet color for the living room..
I want government to be restricted to doing those things that government MUST do, including securing our unalienable rights, and then allow the people to form what ever sort of society they wish to have. And if that means, short of violating somebody's unalienable rights, voting a social contract that others would not want at all, then so be it. That was the Founders intent. Some communities would choose strict Puritanism and some did. Others would choose a Deadwood in its hellfire days. And some did.
Unfortunately, most conservatives see that as a form of compromise. Most liberals do not. Modern American liberalism pushes conformity with everybody accepting and adopting a society that the liberals think we should be. Those who go along with that 'compromise' and those who resist that are seen as being uncompromising.
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
That's a stretch... How do you figure that?
If anyone is changing their party and driving people out these days, it's the GOP. Colin Powell, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, all a bunch of people who decided the GOP has just become too crazy for them.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Well then -- you probably should try his "Eat the Rich". That ought to complete your well-rounded education for now..
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
No. Actually my definition of 'moderate' is one who is clueless, wishy washy, without conviction, nebulous, or unwilling to take a stand or fight for anything.
But as a modern day conservative, or more precisely a classical liberal--you didn't give us an option for that one
I see a moderate as somebody who sees value in both sides of the argument, and will cherry pick the best ideas from both and discard the rest...
And moderates do fight for things...believe me. We're just not attached to anyh partisan ideology....
I chose "very far left" because that's what I consider myself to be.
I doubt I would fit what most people consider "very far left" though.
I doubt I would fit what most people consider "very far left" though.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
I think definitions of "left and right" became largely meaningless after Republicans who supported individual mandates for years (including the current GOP nominee) are suddenly screaming that they are an unconstitutional affront to freedom when the Black Guy Did It.
then it just becomes as meaningful as "Cubs or White Sox"?
then it just becomes as meaningful as "Cubs or White Sox"?
All the more reason to define the terms I think.
But even then, any of us might have trouble placing specific issues into a particular ideology.
1. Do you support abortion for any reason, at any stage including partial birth abortions, or killing a baby that survives abortion? If so, in my view, that would make you far fringe left on that particular issue. If you take a more introspective view of it that there are some of those situations that should be illegal, you could be left, right, or center.
2. Do you support abolition of religious expression from all public venues? If so that could make you far fringe left or simply strong libertarian who dislikes religion.
3. Do you support immediate abolition of all fossil fuels and adoption of only renewable green energy? That would put you in the looney tunes category of the fringe left. A converse position that all exploration of green energy should be stopped and/or all regulation regarding how energy is produced or utilized should be scrapped would put a person in the looney tunes category of the fringe right.
Part of the problem is that we too often aren't allowed to identify who and what we are but others presume the authority to assign a category to us when they disagree with us or hold us in contempt.
And then the board again dissolves into childish mud slinging and schoolyard insults and any constructive discussion won't happen.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
It's not a matter of "supporting", it's a matter of recognizing that women are going to get abortions no matter what the law is, and this is just a fact of life. Besides the histornic examples you bring up. (NO one has a late abortion unless something has gone horribly wrong, and the only decent thing to do is leave them alone.) The fact is, countries that ban abortions like the Philippines have as high a rate as we do.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, we could be more like France, where the rate is half ours. They have universal health care, family leave - paid! - and even government employees who come by and help you with the chores the first few weeks after a pregnancy. But you'd scream SOOOOOOCIALISM, which is defined in the Conservatard Dictionary as "A Rich Douchebag might not be able to afford a Polo Pony".
I've disliked religion since I was a child. Started when I was tortured by nasty frustrated homosexuals who called themselve the Catholic Church. Disliked it when I was Right Wing and now that I'm more left wing. And, yes, I think that it should be banned from public venues, because THAT'S THE LAW.
Except no one actually advocates that postion. Everyone realizes that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables is going to be a gradual process and is going to require a lot of investment and research.
But there are two undeniable facts-
1) There are only a finite amount of fossil fuels available.
2) As long as we are dependent upon them, other countries can dictate policy to us.
The third fact, that the emmission of CO2 is causing global warming, we could debate both the reality of and the urgency of. The first two, not so much.
I agree.... but frankly, we are all part of the same hypocrisy, Senator.
Similar threads
