Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That was me. We are political moderates. We believe government should be the last resort, not the first. It should not remove people's rights unless there is no other way. Government should not benefit one citizen at the expense of another. Personal freedom should come with personal responsibility.
What is not moderate about our views?
We believe government should be the last resort, not the first.
GOOD THING THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, and gave US the STRONG federal Gov't Constitutions
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson
LOL, you need to take a history class. Or read a book.
Thomas Jefferson: Government is best which governs least.
BTW, Jefferson didn't mean what you think he meant. He was not advocating that government solve our problems FOR us. LOL. You can twist anything to Marxist rhetoric, can't you Vladimir?
Getting rid of the minimum wage is certainly moderate. The ideas that someone can't make a choice of what they are willing to work for and government preventing them from working if they are not worth $7.25 an hour is beyond extreme and into loonie kazoonie land.
Eliminating all welfare programs including social security is also moderate. Look at the massive waste when it's done at the national level. And the idea that rural Arkansas = New York City is idiotic. Government charity should be the last resort, not the first, and it should be as local as possible.
I'm with you on the open borders. The libertarians who support that are idiots who are focused on their ideology and not reality.
Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide
That's just stupid. How is preventing people not worth $7.25 from working going to reduce their dependence on government?
Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.
The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .
So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.
.
Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide
That's just stupid. How is preventing people not worth $7.25 from working going to reduce their dependence on government?
That's your problem in a nutshell
" not worth $7.25"
Various minimum wage exceptions apply under specific circumstances to workers with disabilities, full-time students, youth under age 20 in their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment, tipped employees and student-learners.
Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.
The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .
So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.
Andrew Jackson was a libertarian?
Really?
The only thing I can recall he shared with libertarians policy wise was his opposition to a central banking system that controlled currency. Otherwise he was a racist, an authoritarian and a corrupt political whore.
.
Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?
Here is a prime example:I am for true limited republican government. That means letting each state decide if they want a state of junkies or not.
Tapatalk
While I agree on one level, I know it is not a moderate positionModerate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context.
Within Germany, if a majority of people were Nazis, then yes. Being a Nazi was a moderate position in Germany. It was not considered moderate around the world and that is what was so scary about Nazi Germany. How so many people could be led into that belief system.
Now, what was it that was so extreme about the Nazi position? Genocide? Most Germans claim they were unaware of that and if they are telling the truth, then genocide would not be a moderate position - even in Nazi Germany.
When YOU use the term moderate - what do YOU mean? Do you mean something YOU consider moderate? So what is "moderate" to an extremist?
The term is only useful when used as a comparative description. There is no objective definition that fits all instances.
Within the context of the United States of America in 2014 - legalizing pot is a moderate position.
Of course "Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context." in the abstract, but in reality there exists a spectrum that most rational people agree on. Newt Gingrich knew he was representing the right. He only argued the majority was on the right with him.
Moderate does not mean "majority opinion" Societies that take extreme positions or actions are no less extreme because it is the norm in their society. Unless of course you have them living in a vacuum?
My initially saying I agree yet recognize "it is not a moderate position" is misunderstood and misrepresented by you.
People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing a woman's right to choose an abortion, and people like you imagining it means backing abortions as a solution. It is not. It is facing reality no matter how repugnant.
People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing the right to free speech of hateful people and people like you dumbly imagining I support the content of their speech or the way they go about sharing and expressing it.
People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing harm reduction approaches and recognizing people's rights to do drugs and drink themselves to death versus the disease models or self help programs that stress inevitable doom unless abstinence is sought, and people like you coming along and claiming I support something I don't.
People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing laws recognizing a right to assisted suicide and people like you insisting I back idiots (people besides the terminally ill) taking their own lives no matter the reason -- oh wait, I do.
You went to a lot of effort to try to imagine what my positions or responses MIGHT be.
And elected to argue with your own imagination.
What's that called?
Oh yeah .... strawman.
The last resort of a person who has no legitimate argument against the stated position.
"should government do that?" of course it is what we as a people have asked it to do. That is what the US Constitution is about.No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever. Well, except for things they don't want government to do.
So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us. That is ridiculous. If I get my way, you still can make your own choices. If you get your way, my choices are removed.
Clearly mine is the moderate position. No matter how "extreme" a decision I make over my own life, I leave your decision intact. I would be fine with your views if you would extend the same courtesy to me. You very much do not.
and there you have it:
"No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever."
---
pay attention: "So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us."
Where do you get 50% + 1?
As far as the government's right to the taking or property goes, it's written into the US Constitution, and Liberty like Speech has always had boundaries if a civilized and functioning society were to exist for long.
As for your question in red, you can start with what you wrote in blue. Seriously, you don't know where I get 50% plus one?
I'm not going down your rat hole of arguing the Constitution. We are discussing libertarian versus liberal. As I pointed out, liberals believe the majority can set the rules for us all, including and very much performing the acts of removing our liberty and property. Redistributing wealth is not charity, it's plunder. And very much not moderate.
As I said and you ignored, my choices do not involved the removal of your choices. Your choices very much involve the removal of my choices. Clearly my position is the moderate one.
The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .
So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.
Andrew Jackson was a libertarian?
Really?
The only thing I can recall he shared with libertarians policy wise was his opposition to a central banking system that controlled currency. Otherwise he was a racist, an authoritarian and a corrupt political whore.
.
Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?
Apparently not....
While AJ did some good things, he did some really bad shit too. Libertarians also love to hold Ron Paul on a pedestal, as if he's the second coming of Thomas Jefferson, and as if Thomas Jefferson was a perfect human being. No man is/was/or ever will be pure.
What libertarians are not are "nation builders", and their policies will never create a strong nation that can withstand foreign domination, or internal implosion. However they are for damn sure not "nation wreckers", that adjective is best applied to marxist assholes who have done nothing but destroy every nation they've gained control of.
A problem we've had in the US is that we're devoted to freedom, and we have to allow the freedom we cherish to be exploited by the bed wetting parasite "liberals" who are motivated to destroy it.
I agree with the premise that libertarians are "the true moderates".
I have also said many times that the "moderates" can be the problem.
For many issues there is a right or wrong. Not a Right or left. However the left is almost always wrong, and even in the circumstances the left is "right", they're pushing the agenda for a sinister end.
Libertarians need to realize that "moderating" between right and wrong will ensure you're never more than half-right.
Only in your delusional mind, kaz.
You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, much less a decent party framework, much less a workable governmental philosophy.
When people like you stop using the Constitution for a Floor Mat, perhaps we'll understand each other Fakey...................
No one is using the Constitution for a Floor Mat...
Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.
The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .
So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.
.
Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?
So what we had in the late 19th century is a moderate position. Oh'shittt!!!
Corporate highways
No safety net
The workers working for pennies
Child labor
No science investment
Believe me this shit isn't moderate!
The laughable commentary of the "libertarians" continue.
When all the goobering and garbaging are distilled, the result simply is that they don't want to be subject to that states and governments in the modern age cannot conform to the small, limited government model, because civil and personal liberties will not be protected.
Sure jake, big government is "moderate." LOL. You're the leftist authoritarian extremist, you don't even know what moderate is.
Only in your delusional mind, kaz.
You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, much less a decent party framework, much less a workable governmental philosophy.
Well kaz, the premise of your thread has been easily debunked. Not by any comments from liberals, but by the very comments of your 'libertarian' buddies. Moderate people speak in moderate terms. These ideas forwarded by you ilk are not moderate.
I am not referring to anarchists who want no government here who like calling themselves libertarians, I am referring to the masses of us who want government limited, not eliminated.
Good thing the Founders wanted the Gov't's hand in the economy then....
The next post will not be you backing that up because you are full of crap and you made it up. Seriously, before you embarrass yourself further, you need to learn something about history.
Here's a test for you. What do the 9th and 10th amendments say and what do they mean?
What's the 9th and 10th have to do with it?
Libertarianism is the political equivalent of Scientology.
We believe government should be the last resort, not the first.
GOOD THING THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, and gave US the STRONG federal Gov't Constitutions
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson
LOL, you need to take a history class. Or read a book.
Thomas Jefferson: Government is best which governs least.
BTW, Jefferson didn't mean what you think he meant. He was not advocating that government solve our problems FOR us. LOL. You can twist anything to Marxist rhetoric, can't you Vladimir?
Although the saying "That government is best which governs least" is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, we have not found this particular statement in his writings.
Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide
That's just stupid. How is preventing people not worth $7.25 from working going to reduce their dependence on government?
That's your problem in a nutshell
" not worth $7.25"
