Political Discussion

[OhioFiler]

Lou Dobbs is my idea of an independent (not an independent party like you think) and that is what he claims. He has plenty of conviction and morals.

When I think of conservative, I think of fundamentalist as in the religious right -my way or you burn in hell.

Well...I'm about as non-religious as one can be. Damn stereotypes!

[mgmadara]

To me a moderate is someone without conviction. Someone unable to choose an ideology that fits their morality.

I'm a moderate, although not an independent. I have my own convictions and morality but they don't fit perfectly into either party. It's never been a matter of me being unable to choose or me not having convictions. The republicans have moved too far right and the democrats have moved too far left and I refuse to pick an ideology that I don't totally agree with.

[OhioFiler]

I'm a moderate, although not an independent. I have my own convictions and morality but they don't fit perfectly into either party. It's never been a matter of me being unable to choose or me not having convictions. The republicans have moved too far right and the democrats have moved too far left and I refuse to pick an ideology that I don't totally agree with.

Fine. I'll accept that. I need clarification though.

What are the common ideological convictions of a moderate? Republicanism and Democraticism aren't ideologies. What are moderate morals?

[Bandit]

Fine. I'll accept that. I need clarification though.

What are the common ideological convictions of a moderate? Republicanism and Democraticism aren't ideologies. What are moderate morals?

the common ideological convictions of a moderate are "I have to be a democrat or I have to be a republican", while never realizing they are the same exact thing.

Moderate morals are believing that reps have more morals than dems or vice versa, even though Repdems have just as many abortions, an equal amount of murderers and well, of course an equal amount of gay people.

Would you like to hear my version of the moderate drinker verses the moderate alcoholic?

[OhioFiler]

the common ideological convictions of a moderate are "I have to be a democrat or I have to be a republican", while never realizing they are the same exact thing.

Moderate morals are believing that reps have more morals than dems or vice versa, even though Repdems have just as many abortions, an equal amount of murderers and well, of course an equal amount of gay people.

Would you like to hear my version of the moderate drinker verses the moderate alcoholic?

LOL Sure!

I won't challenge your assertion but I am trying to read concepts beyond the typical party affiliation creeds. What does a moderate stand for?

[Bandit]

LOL Sure!

I won't challenge your assertion but I am trying to read concepts beyond the typical party affiliation creeds. What does a moderate stand for?

A moderate drinker has one drink a night and 3 or 4 drinks on saturday. A moderate alcoholic has one drink a night and 3 or 4 drinks on saturday.

Your question was asserted in a political discussion before, but you have changed that now? You should be asking it more like, What is a moderate conservative? what is a moderate democrat? what is a moderate liberal? What is a moderate murderer? What is a moderate Yogi? What is a moderate eater? What is a moderate smoker. Then I would know what you are in reference to.

In Sweden the term means extreme right though Sweden itself is a moderate country and rarely gets invloved with issues of other countries and since they have everyones extra money, that makes perfect sense. A moderate could be someone who does not see either side as important. A moderate could be someone trying to make reconcilation and peace between two opposing views. A moderate may suppoort fair trade but reject communism. Moderates do have opinions and views, convicitons and morals , they just aren't the typical one sided only morals, convictions and views.

Earlier you asserted that moderates have none of the above. I think they can and do. Of course if you don't like that moderate view of what a moderate is, you can always pick an extreme or conservative view of what a moderate is

[OhioFiler]

A moderate drinker has one drink a night and 3 or 4 drinks on saturday. A moderate alcoholic has one drink a night and 3 or 4 drinks on saturday.

Your question was asserted in a political discussion before, but you have changed that now? You should be asking it more like, What is a moderate conservative? what is a moderate democrat? what is a moderate liberal? What is a moderate murderer? What is a moderate Yogi? What is a moderate eater? What is a moderate smoker. Then I would know what you are in reference to.

In Sweden the term means extreme right though Sweden itself is a moderate country and rarely gets invloved with issues of other countries and since they have everyones extra money, that makes perfect sense. A moderate could be someone who does not see either side as important. A moderate could be someone trying to make reconcilation and peace between two opposing views. A moderate may suppoort fair trade but reject communism. Moderates do have opinions and views, convicitons and morals , they just aren't the typical one sided only morals, convictions and views.
Earlier you asserted that moderates have none of the above. I think they can and do. Of course if you don't like that moderate view of what a moderate is, you can always pick an extreme or conservative view of what a moderate is

The highlighted points you make are how I define most political moderates.

I can't imagine having a two-sided conviction.

Example: I believe a woman has a right to choose to abort a baby. I also believe abortion is murder.

Irreconcilable.

[Bandit]

The highlighted points you make are how I define most political moderates.

I can't imagine having a two-sided conviction.

Example: I believe a woman has a right to choose to abort a baby. I also believe abortion is murder.

Irreconcilable.

We are the same. It is like some things can be right and wrong at the same time and looking for a solution when the solution is, there is no solution.

[Bandit]

This was very enlightening. When i consider the above scenario. One conviciton says it is wrong (right wing), another conviction says it is right (left wing). Thus the moderate actually has two distinct convictions, instead of none or only one.

I think the moderate also sees this scenario as a bit screwy:

The right claims abortion is wrong (conviction) because that is murder, then they are the first to pick up a gun and shoot innocent women and children, plus shoot the mother with the baby in the womb so that both die, and say that kind of murder of someone innocent, if it is during war, is the correct (conviction).

Talk about a two sided conviction on murdering what is innocent however, that is not my idea of a moderate.

[OhioFiler]

This was very enlightening. When i consider the above scenario. One conviciton says it is wrong (right wing), another conviction says it is right (left wing). Thus the moderate actually has two distinct convictions, instead of none or only one.

I think the moderate also sees this scenario as a bit screwy:

The right claims abortion is wrong (conviction) because that is murder, then they are the first to pick up a gun and shoot innocent women and children, plus shoot the mother with the baby in the womb so that both die, and say that kind of murder of someone innocent, if it is during war, is the correct (conviction).

Talk about a two sided conviction on murdering what is innocent however, that is not my idea of a moderate.

Collateral damage in a war is not murder. War is actually fought by a set of rules (exception is the Islamofascists).

I think a better argument would be why is a pro-lifer not opposed to the death penalty AND why do pro-abortionists oppose the death penalty?

I suppose a moderate would either oppose both forms of killing, accept both forms of killing or support one but not the other but not really know why they do.

[Bandit]

Collateral damage in a war is not murder. War is actually fought by a set of rules (exception is the Islamofascists).

oh really. so are you the person who will decide what is war and what is not war? or can only big governments decide that? Gangsters are in fact at war in the same city and there is no problem snuffing out an innocent life.

I disagree with you. Taking an innocent life at any time for any reason is murder. All you have done is made an excuse to murder innocent people and renamed murdering innocent people as collateral damage. That is a right wing republican view.

I think a better argument would be why is a pro-lifer not opposed to the death penalty AND why do pro-abortionists oppose the death penalty?

I suppose a moderate would either oppose both forms of killing, accept both forms of killing or support one but not the other but not really know why they do.

in a death penalty you are dealing with a convicted criminal who has already in fact murdered in cold blood. I am for the death penalty on a second offense or for more than one murder and I know why. I believe some people do change and are sorry but still can never be trusted in society. However, I do not feel I should be paying for hard criminals who have killed more than once to sit around and do nothing, while they eat, drink, play games, hurt others in prison and I have to work to pay for their shelter, the guard and pay for the toilet paper that wipes their butts. I say hang em and hang em high, not for retaliation or to get even, but to prevent them from ever harming and murdering anyone else.

[OhioFiler]

oh really. so are you the person who will decide what is war and what is not war? or can only big governments decide that? Gangsters are in fact at war in the same city and there is no problem snuffing out an innocent life.

I disagree with you. Taking an innocent life at any time for any reason is murder. All you have done is made an excuse to murder innocent people and renamed murdering innocent people as collateral damage. That is a right wing republican view.




in a death penalty you are dealing with a convicted criminal who has already in fact murdered in cold blood. I am for the death penalty on a second offense or for more than one murder and I know why. I believe some people do change and are sorry but still can never be trusted in society. However, I do not feel I should be paying for hard criminals who have killed more than once to sit around and do nothing, while they eat, drink, play games, hurt others in prison and I have to work to pay for their shelter, the guard and pay for the toilet paper that wipes their butts. I say hang em and hang em high, not for retaliation or to get even, but to prevent them from ever harming and murdering anyone else.

My view on war is not "right-wing". I believe good must triumph over evil. As Edmond Burke wrote, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Our involvement in Europe during WWII resulted in many civilian deaths yet ultimately we were able to preserve the lives of millions as a result.

We dropped 2 atomic bombs on cities in Japan in an effort to stop the war. It worked. There were many civilian casualties but again, the war was brought to a halt and millions of lives were saved.

We pulled out of the war in Southeast Asia in the early 1970's and millions were subsequently killed.

War is difficult but it is not the same as choosing to kill a baby or an abortion provider.


As to the death penalty, why is the financial cost of one lifetime committed murderer worth it but not the cost of keeping a murderer who killed 2 or more? Both murderers can be kept in maximum security without access to injure any others.

As to the murderer of one feeling remorse thus sparing his life why is not the remorseful murderer of two afforded the same courtesy?

We have a set of laws in our country and certain crimes are deemed punishable by death. I support those laws period. I have no moral problem with a killer who was sentenced to death receiving his due punishment.

[Bandit]

My view on war is not "right-wing". I believe good must triumph over evil. As Edmond Burke wrote, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Our involvement in Europe during WWII resulted in many civilian deaths yet ultimately we were able to preserve the lives of millions as a result.

We dropped 2 atomic bombs on cities in Japan in an effort to stop the war. It worked. There were many civilian casualties but again, the war was brought to a halt and millions of lives were saved.

We pulled out of the war in Southeast Asia in the early 1970's and millions were subsequently killed.

War is difficult but it is not the same as choosing to kill a baby or an abortion provider.



We have a set of laws in our country and certain crimes are deemed punishable by death. I support those laws period. I have no moral problem with a killer who was sentenced to death receiving his due punishment.

so what you are saying is, you decide who dies in war and what war is legit and what wars are not legit for murdering innocent people.

gotcha!

As to the death penalty, why is the financial cost of one lifetime committed murderer worth it but not the cost of keeping a murderer who killed 2 or more? Both murderers can be kept in maximum security without access to injure any others.

As to the murderer of one feeling remorse thus sparing his life why is not the remorseful murderer of two afforded the same courtesy?

then YOU start paying my share for maximum security.

[OhioFiler]

so what you are saying is, you decide who dies in war and what war is legit and what wars are not legit for murdering innocent people.

gotcha!



then YOU start paying my share for maximum security.

I'm not a politician nor did I choose to work for the federal government so I don't need to decide who dies in war or what war is legitimate. I may choose to support a specific war but I don't have to make the decision to direct the effort.


Perhaps I do pay your share of maximium security.

I have a better idea. If a killer is convicted and receives the death penalty give him/her exactly 12 months to handle all appeals. On day 366 strap them down and inject them with the death serum if they haven't won a reprive in the courts by then.

[Bandit]

We have a set of laws in our country and certain crimes are deemed punishable by death. I support those laws period. I have no moral problem with a killer who was sentenced to death receiving his due punishment.

so you want to see them dead because you want to punish them and get revenge. that would explain why you say thousands of innocents being murdering during war is just fine and dandy.

My view on war is not "right-wing".

Yes it is. It is exactly what George SBoosh and Dick Head Cheney would say.