Name one I can vote for. Haven't met one yet. I will vote for the liberal in (R) clothes before I vote for the socialist in (D) clothes. The Democrats have screwed the pooch so many times with KerryDeanGoreClinton..it ain't even humorous.
It takes them a little longer to learn how to use it properly. A reference to lemmings connotes a herd mentality; An overwhelming, unconscious compulsion to follow the pack at all costs. Someone who "claims to be a conservative yet blindly defends Bush just because he has an "R" behind his name" is not exhibiting lemming-like behavior. He would be exhibiting blind idealism. A quite different behavior. :hihi:
You haven't learned yet that the TF/FSA definition of 'liberal' is one with the audacity to disapprove of the almighty Bush? Don't let it get to you. I'm in the same boat as you. I've voted for ONE Democrat in my life, Kip Holden, and only because of his ambition to alleviate the traffic problems in BTR (and that is the field in which I work). Yet many of these clowns have convinced themselves that I am a disciple of Ted Kennedy. Little do they realize that I'm probably a hell of a lot more conservative than their precious idol on many of the issues you listed. So don't worry about it. Much of that sort of conjecture is merely the byproduct of Rove brainwashing. A lot of folks are too preoccupied with dividing people into 2 distinctive groups, presumably because they lack the capability to fathom anythng in between, instead of formulating thoughtful and logical retorts. I mean, why get into the technical details of your contention with someone when you can dismiss anything they say on the grounds that they're 'on the other side.' Isn't it just easier to label someone rather than explain why you disagree?
Conservatives that are far to the right can't seem to perceive that both moderates and liberals are to the left of them, even many pragmatic conservatives! This also aplies with liberals that are too far left. That is the problem with an extreme position . . . poor perspective.
nah that the problem with moderates. too eager to accept the status quo. no perspective, no realization that we could be be far better than we are, if we change. moderates are the ones without any vision or ideas, content to not change.
Take out the oh-so-controversial lemming reference, and this is one helluva post. In fact, I would agree with every single word of it, except I voted for Badnarik.
There are a few good ideas on both sides. So why accept the bad ones strictly for the sake of allegiance? It appears that the prevailing misonception of 'Moderatism' is that the stances are a hybrid of both sides, resulting in not much of a stance at all. That is simply not the case.
