Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well i dunno about these moderate and liberal labels, to me they are synonymous.
what i do know is that traditional conservatism aint even an option anymore, can we just get it on the menu ?
the 2 parties we have now are liberal and the other more liberal. they should just join together, maybe call it republicrat. then we would have real parties facing off, a left wing vs conservative...with very dramatic differences. then let the chips fall where they may.
That is my point. How can anyone be "moderate" on these issues. You have to, at one point, state your view and draw a line in the sand.
Basically, if you are pro abortion you are social liberal no two ways about it. If you believe taxing your fellow citizens is the way to get money for social programs etc then yes, my friend you are a liberal. I could go on. But moderate in the U.S.A is a misnomer.
Exactly. By the definition I have been given by some posters would be a moderate. I am for legalization of marijuana and I am against the death penalty but I am for lower taxes and against the deficit. I see how this works. Unless you agree with every point of a particular party you are a moderate. I guess most people are moderates then.
Here's the common-sense position. Don't know if it fits your definition of "moderate", "conservative", or "liberal."
Abortion:
I am not a woman, I use birth control when desired so the legislation won't directly affect me. My religion doesn't prohibit or condone it. So I don't care. This issue should be decided by people who have a direct stake in it.
War:
War is bad. It should be avoided when possible. When unavoidable, it should be executed in a way which makes the period of conflict as short as possible.
Taxes:
The level of taxation must be high enough to for social services desired by the majority of people. The level of taxation must be low enough to avoid overburdening private industry and citizens.
Israel:
This is a country very far away from where I live which has very little to do with how I conduct my daily affairs. Same answer as abortion.
Global Warming:
Data collected over the last century indicates that human-induced climate change is likely occuring. As we are not capable of modeling the effect of such changes (or accurately determining if they will be good or bad on the aggregate) we should endeavour to improve the efficiency of industry and minimize our impact on the atmosphere as much as possible.
Are these really simplistic positions? You bet. Can these principles be followed all the way down to the debate of the smallest detail of, say, tax code, health care, or combat operations? Yes, if you posess a little common sense and remove the binary blinders of swearing by either some "liberal" or "conservative" agenda that a bunch of power-hungry jackoffs insist you have to choose between so they can put you in their little camp.
These responses put you squarely in line with modern liberal thought. You define these as common sense positions but half the country think they are extreme positions. Most people think their positions are common sense positions.
I was really hoping we could have a civilized conversation in at least one topic on this forum. Of course the right has to jump in with the "liberal this, liberal that," attacks.
There is no one moderate position on any of those issues. A moderate is somebody who may come down on the side of the right on some issues and on the left with others based on their own introspection and personal set of values rather than echoing the strict party line.
I'll give as an example my views on each of the issues that you mentioned above.
1) Abortion: I'm pro-choice: a liberal position, but not after 4 months of gestation (no partial birth abortions) which is a slight conservative redemption.
2) War: I'm pro war when it comes to National Defense and the protection of U.S. interests abroad: a traditional conservative position, but no Nation Building or the spread of democratic ideals abroad: a neo-conservative ideal
3) Taxes: I'm all for keeping taxes and spending to a minimum or in other words no "Big Government" BS: a traditional conservative value.
4) Israel: I'm not a Christian so I feel no special bond with Israel and I can't for the life of me understand why we have to march lock step with them on everything they do, so basically to hell with 'em: which puts me in the liberal camp on that one.
5) Global Warming: Anybody with half a brain knows that "Man Made Climate Change" is a ridiculous globalist hoax: which puts me back in conservative territory.
Hope this helped.
At what precise moment in time does that 4 months of gestation occur? Or, more to the point, what precise moment in time is the demarcation line between acceptable abortion and unacceptable abortion? Or, put yet another way, at what precise moment does that fetus become a human being?
Let us begin with the moment of birth and back up in time - one second at a time - then freeze each moment and specify whether abortion is morally acceptable at that moment. That is, specify whether that developing human being is, in fact, a human being.
So....throughout the 9th month, you're going to say no to abortion. Same for the 8th month, same for the 7th month, same for the 6th month, and same for most of the 5th month. Then, as you count back second by second approaching the 4 month point (a point that is impossible to define precisely), at what second in time do you draw the line? At what precise second in time does a solid moral footing appear that makes killing a developing human being OK?
And, for those who don't know me, I am the least religious person on this forum. This question has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
I'm here, but as I came across your post I was wondering why? If this forum, in general, were a representative sampling of my fellow Americans, I am afraid I would lose hope. I left the forums a while back, because it seemed that so many wanted to just be hateful. It seems we cannot be happy unless we are in opposition to something or someone, like we are looking for reasons to be upset.
I love America and the values that once stood for, but I don't believe that I have all the answers. In fact, I don't believe any of us do. If we cannot speak our minds with consideration of others, and LISTEN (or read) others, without becoming inflamed, then I am very concerned about our future.
I don't believe anyone is ALL RIGHT, or ALL WRONG, including me. So, if that makes me a moderate. I'm here, but I don't know for how long.
At what precise moment in time does that 4 months of gestation occur? Or, more to the point, what precise moment in time is the demarcation line between acceptable abortion and unacceptable abortion? Or, put yet another way, at what precise moment does that fetus become a human being?
Let us begin with the moment of birth and back up in time - one second at a time - then freeze each moment and specify whether abortion is morally acceptable at that moment. That is, specify whether that developing human being is, in fact, a human being.
So....throughout the 9th month, you're going to say no to abortion. Same for the 8th month, same for the 7th month, same for the 6th month, and same for most of the 5th month. Then, as you count back second by second approaching the 4 month point (a point that is impossible to define precisely), at what second in time do you draw the line? At what precise second in time does a solid moral footing appear that makes killing a developing human being OK?
And, for those who don't know me, I am the least religious person on this forum. This question has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
You're attempting to hijack the thread, I won't take the bate.
It helps in that it highlights the fallacy of moderates. Your position on each of those issues puts you in one camp or another, there is nothing moderate in any of those positions.
Wrong. a moderate is someone whose partisan ties are weaker than most and I think that my answers to your questions proved my willingness to cross partisan lines. I take what makes sense from each party and jettison the rest which clearly makes me a centrist.
Last edited by Zekester; 06-16-2010 at 09:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
