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

[AntonToo]

I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. .

Yeah.

That's fucking "moderate" all right.

Just as was expected.

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

Extremists are not going to like a moderate position, so you not liking my moderate position is not surprising. Doesn't mean it's not moderate.

...what is it you don't think I'm unwilling to hear and consider from your pro-life side?

I heard you, I considered it and I rejected the idea that this is a person:

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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?

 

[Chuz Life]

I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. .

Yeah.

That's fucking "moderate" all right.

Just as was expected.

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

Extremists are not going to like a moderate position, so you not liking my moderate position is not surprising. Doesn't mean it's not moderate.

...what is it you don't think I'm unwilling to hear and consider from your pro-life side?

I heard you, I considered it and I rejected the idea that this is a person:

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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.

Really?

Who said ""I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

 

[AntonToo]

I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. .

Yeah.

That's fucking "moderate" all right.

Just as was expected.

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

Extremists are not going to like a moderate position, so you not liking my moderate position is not surprising. Doesn't mean it's not moderate.

...what is it you don't think I'm unwilling to hear and consider from your pro-life side?

I heard you, I considered it and I rejected the idea that this is a person:

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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.

Really?

Who said ""I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Really, I did. There is no contradiction, except in your silly brain maybe.

My position is MODERATE LEFT - Abortion legal, but with some restrictions on late term.

It is consistent with no problem with late term abortion restrictions, even criminal ones.

 

[rightwinger]

Moderates of both parties used to get things done

They would find a common ground and work out deals. Without moderates, you have gridlock

What is wrong with government today

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Crixus]

There is no place for reasonableness in the Republican Party

Yet democrat parties slogan is resist. That's all. No ideas, no discussion, resist. Say, what ever happened to Russia? We still doing the racist Russian pussy grabber?

 

[Chuz Life]

Yeah.

That's fucking "moderate" all right.

Just as was expected.

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

Extremists are not going to like a moderate position, so you not liking my moderate position is not surprising. Doesn't mean it's not moderate.

...what is it you don't think I'm unwilling to hear and consider from your pro-life side?

I heard you, I considered it and I rejected the idea that this is a person:

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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?

 

[rightwinger]

Extremists are not going to like a moderate position, so you not liking my moderate position is not surprising. Doesn't mean it's not moderate.

...what is it you don't think I'm unwilling to hear and consider from your pro-life side?

I heard you, I considered it and I rejected the idea that this is a person:

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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?

But....but......What about ABORTION?

 

[sakinago]

There is no place for reasonableness in the Republican Party

There is almost zero reason in American politics these days. On both sides. The only political philosophy being practiced today is how can we stay in power, increase control, and create bigger problems that attract votes, but we push on latter generations to solve (which they won't be able too, E.G. Chicagos financial situation), which isn't that far off from the rest of America. Chicago is just a little more advanced than the rest of us.

The government is out of control, plain and simple, it's been out of control for a long time now. The media is out of control, not only are they completely biased to the point where they're just glorified water carriers with very big soap box, they also do not represent how America actually is. They've adopted TMZ style reporting, they are the true kings of what we call "reality TV". They look for the conflict situations that create a lot of buzz, and draw in the TMZ fans BC "Oh Snap, so and so said this about so and so, and the. So and so did this to them...what will happen next." And now the entire country is at the point where if you disagree with me, you're either racist/bigot and stupid, or your an entitled snowflake throwing a tantrum...and stupid because you must be just like the jackass the media found today and said this stupid comment.

Reason is dead in America. If you're one of those claiming an entire side is stupid, evil, racist, hateful, etc, etc, you're part of the decaying flesh that is American politics these day. Because whatever media you're ingesting to inflate you're fragile ego has turned off the reasoning function of your brain, and they are leading you around like a trained dog. It doesn't take a genius to look at Chicago's financial situation and say "what the hell were they thinking, that was never going to work, and they probably knew that back then when they implemented it." Well guess what, that's what politicians are trying to sell you today, the same exact BS Chicago tried to pull. AND ITS WORKING! So you can either turn away and ignore this very big problem, and go about your ignorant blissful way (the bliss is not going to last very long, the bliss period is pretty much over actually) or you can stop being part of the problem, use your fucking brain to CRITICALLY think just a little (doesn't take much to solve these problems). ITS NOT THAT HARD.

 

[AntonToo]

Extremists are not going to like a moderate position, so you not liking my moderate position is not surprising. Doesn't mean it's not moderate.

...what is it you don't think I'm unwilling to hear and consider from your pro-life side?

I heard you, I considered it and I rejected the idea that this is a person:

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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.

 

[NightFox]

The hardliners of the parties are responsible for the moderates. Stop trying to make it a dirty word. It isn't.

I thought it was the other way around.....

The great question of our time, which came first, the moderate or the extremist?

The 2nd great question of our time, is there such a thing as a moderate extremist?



"Subjectivity is so subjective"

 

[sakinago]

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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.

The constitution absolutely did at inception, abortion was illegal, and it was common law. They didn't have pregnancy tests back then and did not have quite the abundance nor access to food and healthcare we have so it wasn't uncommon to miss a period, and you didn't really know you were pregnant until what was called the "quickening" when you knew you were pregnant, which it was then murder to "abort".

On top of that "person-hood" is a complete abstract term. There is not one single definition of it, it's just a mental loophole created. Minimal higher brain activity is also a very abstract threshold, it's actually a ridiculously abstract threshold, since there are plenty of dogs smarter than babies out there, but we put them down pretty often. What is the test of minimal brain activity, and defined by who? The better question is why didn't you ask yourself this before you wandered so blatantly in the dark with this statement?

 

[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

 

[jwoodie]

Clueless?

 

[jwoodie]

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

 

[Chuz Life]

"I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. ."

Show me the "COMPROMISE" in that.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

Clueless?

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

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

 

[bendog]

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.

What then of guys like Machin and Tester who will vote with gopers?

 

[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?