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

[AntonToo]

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.

Oh wow, talk about hardships. Sorry for the rough words.

Thanks but I don't mind the rough words at all. I'm not looking for pity. Just needed to explain why and how I misread your post. We still disagree hugely on a lot of things.

I will try to address those areas as I get the chance. I do appreciate your understanding of my situation though.

Well like I said, just because you don't agree with a position, doesn't mean it's not a moderate position.

 

[Mac1958]

It's certainly understandable, why partisans on both ends don't like moderates.

 

[Divine Wind]

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."

The compromise was 24 weeks, based on medical opinion. You're exemplifying extremism. Just like the anti-gun mob, compromise will give you an inch, but you want the whole mile.

 

[Divine Wind]

One day the RWnuts claim that liberals are exclusionary of those who don't agree with them,

the next day the same RWnuts want to literally crucify the Republicans who don't toe the conservative line.

Modern Liberals are exclusionary, but now there are many Republicans who are, indeed, just like fucking Liberals.

 

[Divine Wind]

Care to cite any examples?

Sure, I'm a MODERATE on minimum wage.

I am pro-minimum wage but consider $15 minimum wage excessive.

Would you compromise at $14.95?

NO, $10 is a good point for national mw. It's time tested (it was $10 in real terms in the 60s) and not an over reach.

I prefer such laws to be State or local, not Federal. The Feds need to focus on international relations and defense, not how much a burger-flipper in Tupelo, MS is making.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'd like to ask to OP and anyone commenting here against so called moderates...who do you consider moderates? Just so we're on the same page.

Just saying Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are the night kings of the moderates, IMO, almost everyone they touch, their eyes turn blue...

The three GOP Senators who voted against in the most recent Obamacare vote are described as "moderates" by Democrats and RINOs by most Republicans. I think they are playing on both sides of the fence in order to deceive their constituents and curry favor with the liberal press. Despite their previous affirmations to repeal Obamacare, they would rather sit on the sidelines and see how the wind blows before staking out a position.

Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative who was a compromise candidate for Speaker. As such, he has to mollify "moderate" GOP House Members who represent majority Democratic districts. Mitch McConnell seems to have risen from the ranks of mediocrity by not being offensive or confrontational. The 2018 elections may be as pivotal as the 2016 elections. Voters will have a choice between pursuing a conservative agenda or surrendering to the Antifa mobs. Current polling does not represent what people will do when they are actually casting their ballots, but we will see.

So do you want a Politburo or just "the Leader" to impose all laws for the good of the nation?

"Democracy is messy" -- Donald Rumsfeld

 

[jwoodie]

It's certainly understandable, why partisans on both ends don't like moderates.

Coservative: 3+3=6

Liberal: 3x3=9

Moderate: 3?3=7.5

 

[Mac1958]

Coservative: 3+3=6
Liberal: 3x3=9
Moderate: 3?3=7.5

Conservative: I'M RIGHT! I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS! YOU'RE STUPID!

Liberal: I'M RIGHT! I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS! YOU'RE STUPID!

Moderate:
.

 

[sartre play]

A majority of this country "belongs" to neither silly "end".

We'd prefer to think for ourselves, which is why wingers get so pissy.

I sure wish that was true, hate media sells, hence no moderate voices.

 

[Mac1958]

A majority of this country "belongs" to neither silly "end". We'd prefer to think for ourselves, which is why wingers get so pissy.

I sure wish that was true, hate media sells, hence no moderate voices.

Yeah, that's a big part of this.

Voices of reason & moderation are dangerous because they are better at solving problems.
.

 

[jwoodie]

Voices of reason & moderation are dangerous because they are better at solving problems.

So this is how you solve problems:

Would you prefer the term "clueless?"

 

[Mac1958]

Voices of reason & moderation are dangerous because they are better at solving problems.

So this is how you solve problems:

Would you prefer the term "clueless?"

It's amazing that you would have an issue with moderation and reason.

Well, no, it's not. Speaking of "clueless".
.

 

[sartre play]

If I wrote down every single reason I ever thought of & every reason I ever heard of on both sides of the abortion issue how many on this board would look at both sides and concede that the other side had some valid reasons for there view, still keep there basic choice but have an understanding (not be so hateful) towards the other view. not many is my guess, but to hear with open mind is my view of moderation.

 

[jwoodie]

It's amazing that you would have an issue with moderation and reason.

Reason solves problems, not moderation. Do you know the difference?

 

[Mac1958]

It's amazing that you would have an issue with moderation and reason.

Reason solves problems, not moderation. Do you know the difference?

Of course moderation is important. It's important in virtually everything we do.

The challenge is that moderation requires discipline, curiosity, humility and intellectual honesty. And the obedient flocks on both ends of the spectrum have been fooled into thinking that those are negative qualities.
.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's certainly understandable, why partisans on both ends don't like moderates.

Coservative: 3+3=6

Liberal: 3x3=9

Moderate: 3?3=7.5

Spread the hate. In the end, it's the extremists who'll get hurt.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no place for reasonableness in the Republican Party

Certainly seems that way. Are there any Conservatives left? All we see and hear are the anti-America RWNJ Putin lovers. And now they're airing fascist nazis.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

It's far more than just abortion though. The control of one's own body is the most basic right of all.

What's more ridiculous than making suicide illegal?

And no male would stand still for being forced to reproduce.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jwoodie]

It's amazing that you would have an issue with moderation and reason.

Reason solves problems, not moderation. Do you know the difference?

Of course moderation is important. It's important in virtually everything we do.

The challenge is that moderation requires discipline, curiosity, humility and intellectual honesty. And the obedient flocks on both ends of the spectrum have been fooled into thinking that those are negative qualities.
.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

-Barry Goldwater 1964

Do you disagree?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Care to cite any examples?

Appointment in Samarra

Rambo Dumbo, Darth Evader, Semicolon Powell, and Neocondi Rice getting into ultraliberal nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq.