Do you consider yourself a moderate?

[Tristicus]

Or because we acknowledge that there are more than two sides to every argument, and we have the balls to think for ourselves. Moderate != Neutral.

Or because you don't have the balls to take a side.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I aim for the side of reason, which is rarely exclusively at one extreme or another, and is in fact independent of any side. Not sure if that falls within the (political?) definition of "moderate."

On this board I tend to be skewed towards the "trolling" side, though.

 

[irishScott]

Or because you don't have the balls to take a side.

I do take a "side" as you would put it when it comes time to vote. I vote for the candidate that best represents my values, like the vast majority of America. Only the extreme minority agree with their candidate on everything, and only complete morons do so without even considering the issue.

What's ass-backwards is you're telling me I don't have balls because I refuse to be my candidate's bitch.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Moderate.

Domestic Policy:
I strongly value independence and personal liberty, and do think government should stay out of every aspect of our lives that does not directly infringe on the rights of others. Drug use, right to marriage, abortion, gun ownership etc should be rights held by the individual, not society, to do with as they see fit.

All the same I understand the importance (or necessary evil) of government, and know that there are certain undertakings and services (such as pure science and higher education) that benefit society as a whole and should not remain *exclusively* to private industry.

Foreign Policy:
Speak softly but carry a big gun. Diplomacy should be the first option, but the use of our armed forces should never be removed from the table. We should not resort to occupations in military engagements (mostly because we suck ass at occupation) but if we must remove the government of another nation, do not nation build, let them sort out the aftermath with some rules and ultimatums on our part.

Cut off bullshit monetary aid to foreign nations (i.e. Warlords and Dictators) and provide (through the Peace Corps and NPO/NGO) actual solutions to the world's problems in a manner which encourages self sufficiency. We can keep shipping all our excess rice to Somalia keeping them bound to the hand that feeds them or we can send bright and inspired minds to set the groundwork for Somali's to farm their own land.

This is the 21st century, we were supposed to have flying cars and unlimited energy, not this wonky bullshit.

 

[Jaskalas]

Or because we acknowledge that there are more than two sides to every argument, and we have the balls to think for ourselves. Moderate != Neutral.

Pride before the fall.

 

[Tristicus]

I do take a "side" as you would put it when it comes time to vote. I vote for the candidate that best represents my values, like the vast majority of America. Only the extreme minority agree with their candidate on everything, and only complete morons do so without even considering the issue.

What's ass-backwards is you're telling me I don't have balls because I refuse to be my candidate's bitch.

Or, you don't have the balls to take a side. You assume that the sides here are Republican/Democrat, in which case, you're wrong. You assume that you're not being a bitch by being a moderate.

 

[irishScott]

Or, you don't have the balls to take a side. You assume that the sides here are Republican/Democrat, in which case, you're wrong. You assume that you're not being a bitch by being a moderate.

Then tell me oh great and ballsy Trsticus, what are the sides? Depending on your definition they could be the major parties or every individual, since no one has the exact same opinion on everything. Debating about "sides" is pointless. Therefore I will stop using the word.

I stick to my values and, come election day, vote for the candidate I feel is most capable of transmitting those values to Washington. I have my individual opinions. The fact that others agree with those opinions (and vice versa) only unifies us on whatever the issue is. Politically speaking I am not universally on anyone's side but my own, and in my case that happens to fall into the general definition of "moderate". To clarify: "moderate" in America is relative to the Democrat and Republican party platforms. How this makes me ballless is beyond me.

So if you're going to just come and insult me again, please do so with unambiguous language. Let's hear your political definitions of "side" and "moderate". Answer ambiguously and I'll just assume you are trolling and go about my business.

 

[irishScott]

Pride before the fall.

lol wut?

 

[Tristicus]

Then tell me oh great and ballsy Trsticus, what are the sides? Depending on your definition they could be the major parties or every individual, since no one has the exact same opinion on everything. Debating about "sides" is pointless. Therefore I will stop using the word.

I stick to my values and, come election day, vote for the candidate I feel is most capable of transmitting those values to Washington. I have my individual opinions. The fact that others agree with those opinions (and vice versa) only unifies us on whatever the issue is. Politically speaking I am not universally on anyone's side but my own, and in my case that happens to fall into the general definition of "moderate". To clarify: "moderate" in America is relative to the Democrat and Republican party platforms. How this makes me ballless is beyond me.

So if you're going to just come and insult me again, please do so with unambiguous language. Let's hear your political definitions of "side" and "moderate". Answer ambiguously and I'll just assume you are trolling and go about my business.

What are sides? Ideologies maybe? Your side, and their side? You can assume anything you like, but that doesn't give you the balls you lack.

 

[irishScott]

What are sides? Ideologies maybe? Your side, and their side? You can assume anything you like, but that doesn't give you the balls you lack.

Yeah you're fucking trolling. Have a nice day.

 

[CallMeJoe]

What are sides? Ideologies maybe? Your side, and their side? You can assume anything you like, but that doesn't give you the balls you lack.

May we assume from your testicular obsession that you consider yourself somewhat of an expert on other men's balls?

 

[MotF Bane]

No because I'm not.

Moderates are just scared to take a side.

Some, maybe. But not all moderates are scared to take a side. What an utterly ridiculous idea.

 

[dpearson]

I don't know where I fall on the political spectrum.

For example, I think homosexuality is immoral (I don't have an explanation for gay people being gay for as long as they can remember...demonic influence perhaps?) but I don't think I have the right to tell people how to live their lives. So I think gay people shouldn't be restricted from getting married. On a related note, personally I think we should give civil unions the same status and benefits marriage has, so the only difference between civil unions and marriage would be that a marriage is a union blessed by a church. So only religious people would get married. But that's a different topic.

Economically, the only issue I've put much thought into lately is executive compensation.

I'm having a hard time finding a reliable publication on average executive pay that cites its source. There's http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ and they cite salary.com. But I'm loathe to use AFL-CIO because they're not exactly neutral. So take what I say here with a grain salt.

According to that page, a CEO of a S&P 500 company was paid, on average, $9.25 million in total compensation in 2009. What are they doing to create so much value? Is the leadership they're providing really worth 185 times as someone who makes $50,000 a year? If the CEOs are really deserving of that much money, I'm all for their company paying them that. For the record, I don't think there should be legislation limiting CEO pay. It should be the company's decision to pay what they think is fair.

So does any of that make me a liberal, moderate, or conversative? I don't know.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...the only difference between civil unions and marriage would be that a marriage is a union blessed by a church. So only Christians would get married. But that's a different topic...

Only Christianity qualifies as a valid church?

 

[Bowfinger]

Or because you don't have the balls to take a side.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe YOU don't have the brains to recognize that the real world doesn't fall into two simple-minded, black and white alternatives where you take "sides" as if it's some sort of meaningless sporting event? The real world is a complex place, the stakes are high, and issues can rarely be considered with your shallow, bumper-sticker ideology.

I think that's one of America's biggest problems today. We have too many partisan idiots who care far more about their "side" winning than they do about what's best for America.

 

[nick1985]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe YOU don't have the brains to recognize that the real world doesn't fall into two simple-minded, black and white alternatives where you take "sides" as if it's some sort of meaningless sporting event? The real world is a complex place, the stakes are high, and issues can rarely be considered with your shallow, bumper-sticker ideology.

Pot meet kettle

 

[Bowfinger]

Pot meet kettle

Fluff off, idiot. That made even less sense than your usual tripe.

 

[dpearson]

Only Christianity qualifies as a valid church?

Are you trying to get a rise out of me? If so, it didn't work.

I didn't say only Christianity qualifies as a valid church. I always thought the definition of a church was a place where Christians gather to worship God. Are there other religions that claim churches as their gathering places?

 

[nick1985]

That made even less sense than your usual tripe.

http://tinyurl.com/oyjj2f

 

[CallMeJoe]

Are you trying to get a rise out of me? If so, it didn't work.

I didn't say only Christianity qualifies as a valid church. I always thought the definition of a church was a place where Christians gather to worship God. Are there other religions that claim churches as their gathering places?

You said only Christians would get married, implying that other religions were not sufficiently valid to consecrate a marriage. I was just trying to get clarification.

 

[dpearson]

You said only Christians would get married, implying that other religions were not sufficiently valid to consecrate a marriage. I was just trying to get clarification.

Oh, as I understand it, marriage is a Christian institution. If other religions call a union blessed by their deity marriage as well, then maybe it would've been more accurate for me to say "Only religious people would get married."

 

[Bowfinger]

[ More pointless noise ]

I have many flaws, but black and white thinking isn't one of them. I recognize that almost every issue has a broad spectrum of valid perspectives and overlapping interests, and that good solutions require finding the best balance among them. I leave the simplistic black and white "thinking" (a.k.a., mindless parroting) to you sock puppets.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Oh, as I understand it, marriage is a Christian institution. If other religions call a union blessed by their deity marriage as well, then maybe it would've been more accurate for me to say "Only religious people would get married."

You may be shocked to learn that not only do Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and others get married, but many of these religions consecrated marriages before your Christ was born.

 

[nonlnear]

What is a moderate?

 

[Bowfinger]

Oh, as I understand it, marriage is a Christian institution. If other religions call a union blessed by their deity marriage as well, then maybe it would've been more accurate for me to say "Only religious people would get married."

That would be my solution to the debate. Get government out of the marriage business entirely. Government would recognize civil unions (or whatever one wants to call them) while "marriage" and its equivalents would be left up to individual religious institutions. That way if Westboro Baptist Church doesn't want to marry gays, it doesn't have to, while the SF Union Square Baptist Church would be free to do so if it chose. There's no reason for the government to butt in one way or the other.