• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Those Pesky Moderates

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The problem with moderates is that they don't realize that many times there is no middle ground. Compromise isn't always the answer. Sometimes one side of the issue is flat wrong.

Almost all the time that side of the issue is espoused by the Left, since they're assumption is that someone else's freedom is a bargaining chip they're allowed to play with.

Moderates enable the left to use that chip, because moderates don't stand up for freedom.
Click to expand...
There is certainly truth in the idea that just aiming for the random middle-ground, a misleading term unless one assumes a very limited political spectrum, can be very arbitrary and silly.
 
Wessexman said:
There is certainly truth in the idea that just aiming for the random middle-ground, a misleading term unless one assumes a very limited political spectrum, can be very arbitrary and silly.
Click to expand...

Moderates illustrate the danger of the phrase "good enough for government work".
 
Wessexman said:
There is certainly truth in the idea that just aiming for the random middle-ground, a misleading term unless one assumes a very limited political spectrum, can be very arbitrary and silly.
Click to expand...

intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, maintaining that only one part of the political spectrum is right is just plain stupid. Advantage of moderates is, we can lean left, or right, as needed. Those who are already at the ends can't go any further in their chosen direction without being fascists or communists....and ignorant pride keeps them from moving toward the middle...:2razz:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The problem with moderates is that they don't realize that many times there is no middle ground. Compromise isn't always the answer. Sometimes one side of the issue is flat wrong.

Almost all the time that side of the issue is espoused by the Left, since they're assumption is that someone else's freedom is a bargaining chip they're allowed to play with.

Moderates enable the left to use that chip, because moderates don't stand up for freedom.
Click to expand...

The problem with this and other posts I've read in the thread is they seem to assume a single-dimensional spectrum with liberal on the left, conservative on the right, and moderate neatly in the center, straddling perfectly in the middle of nowhere on every important issue. The reality is much more complex. And most attempts to create an accurate graphic of the political spectrum involve multiple axes and dimensions. Which means a moderate (if there really is such a thing) may indeed have very definite positions far to one side or the other on a wide variety of individual issues.

Then again, there are some folks who simply can't make up their minds about anything. I wouldn't call them 'moderate.' I'd call them 'confused' or 'indecisive.'

;)
 
UtahBill said:
intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, maintaining that only one part of the political spectrum is right is just plain stupid. Advantage of moderates is, we can lean left, or right, as needed. Those who are already at the ends can't go any further in their chosen direction without being fascists or communists....and ignorant pride keeps them from moving toward the middle...:2razz:
Click to expand...

The problem with that is it assumes a one-dimensional political spectrum. It shuts out not only the usual "extremists", who often like fascists don't fit too well into a one-dimensional spectrum, but other group as well.

I just don't know how you can be a "moderate" between traditionalist conservatism, fascism, guild socialism, anarcho-communism and social creditism. These ideologies, a few among many, do not sit easily together on a simple spectrum. Even if one adds the libertarian-authoritarian dimension it is still very hard.

This doesn't mean moderatism is not without value, just that it does have a degree of relativism in it and if it claimed too absolutely it can be damaging to interesting political discourse.
 
Wessexman said:
The problem with that is it assumes a one-dimensional political spectrum. It shuts out not only the usual "extremists", who often like fascists don't fit too well into a one-dimensional spectrum, but other group as well.
Click to expand...

Great minds think alike. We cross posted virtually the same thing!

:rofl
 
UtahBill said:
My neighbor lost his job, he worked for an architectural firm. Business is very slow and half the staff got laid off. I will be paying him with my money to help sovle his problem. He will help hang sheetrock in my basement. Is that OK with you?
Click to expand...

Works for me. I certainly don't recall volunteering to support the unemployed.

UtahBill said:
Somehow, I have never felt that the constitution tells me no about anything related to being a moderate, but that is just me....
Click to expand...

No, there's millions out there, just like you, and equally wrong.

The Constitution outlines very plainly what the Congress is allowed to do in Article 1, Section 8.

The Tenth Amendment makes it very plain that if the Constitution doesn't say Congress can do something, then it can't do it, and whatever "it" may be, it's up to the individual states to decide for themselves on the matter.

Welfare isn't allowed to be a federal program. Nor is education, social security, farm subsidies, unemployment insurance, health care, Americans with Disabilities, or automotive fuel economy standards, to put up just a very short list of all the things the moderates have enabled the federal government to do that it's not actually allowed to do by the highest law of the land.

UtahBill said:
Ubercons, and farlefties, are at the ends of the political spectrum, and do NOT represent the majority, but want to be the tail that wags the dog.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't know. I've never attended a science fiction fan convention, myself.

I'm just rational.

If that's "extreme", to bad. I take the law for what it means, unlike the moderates, and don't pretend the law means what it doesn't say, just to get what I want.


UtahBill said:
Not gonna happen. Neither end of the spectrum has ever had that power for very long, if at all.
Click to expand...

How long did Hitler need to hold power to wreck Germany? That's one outcome of the path the moderates are enabling. How long did the Russians suffer under the Communists? That's another, very similar, branch on that path of yours. Mao killed how many Chinese? Was it fifteen million, or only ten? Pol Pot killed 50% of the people in his country seeking socialist purity.

How many people have libertarian "extremists" killed when they've taken control of a nation? Oh, that's right, only radical leftist extremists benefit from the blindness of the moderates. Moderates for some reason never never manage to swing the path of a nation to the side that enhances freedom and true wealth.

Right. Libertarian "extremists" never seize control of government. Unlike moderates, we don't have blood on our hands to show for it.
 
Grateful Heart said:
The problem with this and other posts I've read in the thread is they seem to assume a single-dimensional spectrum with liberal on the left, conservative on the right, and moderate neatly in the center, straddling perfectly in the middle of nowhere on every important issue.
Click to expand...

Problem with that statement of yours is that you can't identify any one-dimensional thoughts of mine in what I said.

You could try to seperate what your personal assumptions are from what you think you read and concentrate on what you've actually read the next time you post.

Libertarians are perfectly aware of the pan-dimensional nature of political thought, and we're also aware that only those paths that respect the right of the indivudual to own (and thus control) his own property are paths to human dignity, freedom, and wealth.

All other paths turn the individual into someone else's property, including all so-called "moderate" paths that rely on taking someone else's money to solve the problems the moderates have with the world.

As I said, my money isn't the solution to your problems.

UtahBill said:
The reality is much more complex. And most attempts to create an accurate graphic of the political spectrum involve multiple axes and dimensions. Which means a moderate (if there really is such a thing) may indeed have very definite positions far to one side or the other on a wide variety of individual issues.
Click to expand...

Since the net effect of their squishiness is to enable the destruction of freedom, it doesn't matter much if they hold one or two ideals that they feel are good that actually are. They're inability to hold a coherent ideology opens them to the worst feel-good tripe baiting the traps of those who troll for the simple minded sucker.

UtahBill said:
Then again, there are some folks who simply can't make up their minds about anything. I wouldn't call them 'moderate.' I'd call them 'confused' or 'indecisive.'
Click to expand...

Good for you.

They themselves wear their "Moderate" badges with immoderate pride and the shapers of collectivist political thought makes sure those "moderates" receive the highest of praise when they wreak the most damage to the forces of freedom and independence.

For some reason the "moderates" don't like the labels "confused", "indecisive", or even "damn fool".

I don't know why that would be.
 
Wessexman said:
This doesn't mean moderatism is not without value, just that it does have a degree of relativism in it and if it claimed too absolutely it can be damaging to interesting political discourse.
Click to expand...

Moderation has it's place.

Once it's decided, wrongly, to reserve lanes in the public thoroughfare for "car-pool" use only, the moderates can quibble over what the traffic fine for citizens, who also paid their share of taxes to build the road, who are caught riding in their cars by themselves in those elitist lanes. That's how the fine in California for violating the carpool lane is the weird figure of $271.

Only moderates would finally compromise on that figure.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Problem with that statement of yours is that you can't identify any one-dimensional thoughts of mine in what I said.

You could try to seperate what your personal assumptions are from what you think you read and concentrate on what you've actually read the next time you post.
Click to expand...

After a careful consideration of that statement of mine, and your response, as well as a smattering of your responses to other recent statements of mine, I've come to the conclusion that the only problem with that statement of mine is that it was written in the English language.

:confused:
 
Last edited:
Grateful Heart said:
After a careful consideration of that statement of mine, and your response, as well as a smattering of your responses to other recent statements of mine, I've come to the conclusion that the only problem with that statement of mine is that it was written in the English language.

:confused:
Click to expand...

:rofl
:rofl

:rofl
:rofl
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Not mine. You're absolutely right about that.

I can verbalize the derivation of my political philosophy from first principles using logic.



Sure you're blind to reason.

Moderates refuse to accept the perfectly reasonable principle that, for one example, my money isn't a solution to their problems, or anyone else's.

Their artificial ideology is that they're ideas are better because they can't verbalize their rationale. That's just great, isn't it?

And I tend to look at each individual as a person, not a solution to someone else's problems.

I respect the power of free choice, and I respect that people that make choices shouldn't expect to harm or rob someone else to escape the consequences of that choice. Moderates, by the very fact that they have to compromise with socialists, deny everyone real choice.

I understand the Constitution and apply it to the problems of the day. Moderates can't handle the Constitution. It keeps telling them "no", and they can't accept that.
Click to expand...

So basically, your whole "rationale" about why moderates are weenies is that they're just big stupid heads? It's the whole "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so" line of reasoning.

Yeah, you're a sharp one aren't you, brainchild? :lol:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Problem with that statement of yours is that you can't identify any one-dimensional thoughts of mine in what I said.

You could try to seperate what your personal assumptions are from what you think you read and concentrate on what you've actually read the next time you post.

Libertarians are perfectly aware of the pan-dimensional nature of political thought, and we're also aware that only those paths that respect the right of the indivudual to own (and thus control) his own property are paths to human dignity, freedom, and wealth.

All other paths turn the individual into someone else's property, including all so-called "moderate" paths that rely on taking someone else's money to solve the problems the moderates have with the world.

As I said, my money isn't the solution to your problems.



Since the net effect of their squishiness is to enable the destruction of freedom, it doesn't matter much if they hold one or two ideals that they feel are good that actually are. They're inability to hold a coherent ideology opens them to the worst feel-good tripe baiting the traps of those who troll for the simple minded sucker.



Good for you.

They themselves wear their "Moderate" badges with immoderate pride and the shapers of collectivist political thought makes sure those "moderates" receive the highest of praise when they wreak the most damage to the forces of freedom and independence.

For some reason the "moderates" don't like the labels "confused", "indecisive", or even "damn fool".

I don't know why that would be.
Click to expand...
You are attributing to me statements not made by me.....please fix this....
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Not mine. You're absolutely right about that.

I can verbalize the derivation of my political philosophy from first principles using logic.



Sure you're blind to reason.

Moderates refuse to accept the perfectly reasonable principle that, for one example, my money isn't a solution to their problems, or anyone else's.Their artificial ideology is that they're ideas are better because they can't verbalize their rationale. That's just great, isn't it?

And I tend to look at each individual as a person, not a solution to someone else's problems.

I respect the power of free choice, and I respect that people that make choices shouldn't expect to harm or rob someone else to escape the consequences of that choice. Moderates, by the very fact that they have to compromise with socialists, deny everyone real choice.

I understand the Constitution and apply it to the problems of the day. Moderates can't handle the Constitution. It keeps telling them "no", and they can't accept that.
Click to expand...
I not only agree with the bolded part, but will say that most of our problems are never going to be solved with mere money. We need a culture shift, one where NCLB means that no child is allowed to drop out of school and be a guaranteed drain on society. IMO, moderates are more aware that the mantras of the left and right will lead to failure, as the far left and the far right are too stubborn to meet in the middle and search for solutions. When one side claims to be the ony one with access to the truth, etc. etc etc.
 
UtahBill said:
You are attributing to me statements not made by me.....please fix this....
Click to expand...

Refer back to my post #35.

I think asking for this to be 'fixed' is asking a bit too much in this case.

:cool:
 
Grateful Heart said:
Refer back to my post #35.

I think asking for this to be 'fixed' is asking a bit too much in this case.

:cool:
Click to expand...

no comprende vous....what does this have to do with scarecrow's post 33, the one where he quotes someone else, and puts my name to it?
 
To put it as kindly as possible, there are times when it might be more productive debating my cat than debating certain message board posters. It's not always completely evident after one or two exchanges. But by the third exchange the trend is usually pretty obvious.

Ça vous aide?

;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
To put it as kindly as possible, there are times when it might be more productive debating my cat than debating certain message board posters. It's not always completely evident after one or two exchanges. But by the third exchange the trend is usually pretty obvious.

Ça vous aide?

;)
Click to expand...

put your cat on, sans catnip.....:2razz:
 
Correction:

In post #33 there were two quotes wrongly attributed to Utah Bill that should have been shown to be from Grateful Heart.

Cut and paste error.
 
Grateful Heart said:
After a careful consideration of that statement of mine, and your response, as well as a smattering of your responses to other recent statements of mine, I've come to the conclusion that the only problem with that statement of mine is that it was written in the English language.

:confused:
Click to expand...

Well, then, next time write in a language you're familiar with, okay?
 
Fiddytree said:
Morally? Part of the reason why I am more moderate is through tough moral lessons learned.
Click to expand...

So it's more moral to set traffic fines at $271 instead of $272?

That's good to know.

On the real black and white issues of the day, the moral dilemmas aren't that hard to sort out.

A woman's right to choose ends at her decision to have sex that can lead to pregnancy, it does not include the use of murder as a tool to increase her convenience.

Once the decision is made to invade a country, there's no morality in turning back once the country's broken. We gotta stick around and fix it.

There's no morality in violating the Constitution, merely political expedience and convenience.

Moderates ALWAYS end up compromising away someone else's liberty to satisfy their moral choices. There's nothing moral about that.
 
UtahBill said:
I not only agree with the bolded part, but will say that most of our problems are never going to be solved with mere money. We need a culture shift, one where NCLB means that no child is allowed to drop out of school and be a guaranteed drain on society.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's easy enough to do.

Stop funding those programs that society currently provides that makes that person a "drain".

It's the parents' job to keep their brat in school.

The culture shift needed is the dismissal of the weird notion that I'm my neighbor's keeper. I do not care what happens to them, I am not their tappable resource.

Correction:

UtahBill said:
IMO, moderates are more aware that the mantras of the left and right will lead to failure,
Click to expand...

Funny, the use of the word "always" is immoderate.

Fact of the matter is, the conservative/libertarian agenda works just fine when it's applied, unless someone stupidly expects utopia and 100% happiness everywhere.

The policies of the left have to lead to failure, they violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

UtahBill said:
as the far left and the far right are too stubborn to meet in the middle and search for solutions.
Click to expand...

That's because there are no solutions in a society wearing half a slave collar.


UtahBill said:
When one side claims to be the ony one with access to the truth, etc. etc etc.
Click to expand...

There is only one path to truth.

That path is the one not paved by slave labor.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, that's easy enough to do.

Stop funding those programs that society currently provides that makes that person a "drain".

It's the parents' job to keep their brat in school.

The culture shift needed is the dismissal of the weird notion that I'm my neighbor's keeper. I do not care what happens to them, I am not their tappable resource.

Correction:



Funny, the use of the word "always" is immoderate.

Fact of the matter is, the conservative/libertarian agenda works just fine when it's applied, unless someone stupidly expects utopia and 100% happiness everywhere.

The policies of the left have to lead to failure, they violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



That's because there are no solutions in a society wearing half a slave collar.




There is only one path to truth.

That path is the one not paved by slave labor.
Click to expand...

Did I use the word always? Read my posts all you want, you will find that I rarely use absolutes. See, I could have said I never use absolutes, but I said rarely. I will admit to being a bit anal about absolutes. You might try it yourself....:2razz:

There may be only one path to one specific truth, truth in general can have many paths...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom