in my thinking, a "moderate" position is defined more by the media than by the political stance of the person. just as others have stated, who defines something as "radical fundamentalism" or "liberal" other than media? i agree that it seems that a "moderate" (really have difficulty with the term) waits until the argument is defined and then positions himself/herself. i say stake your position, take a stand, etc.
Of course I have. Having positions on both sides is what makes me a Moderate, rather than a moderate Conservative or a moderate Democrat. Moderates don't have to be centrists, what is so hard to understand about that? I don't give a rats ass how my position is considered by anyone other than myself. It's an absurd notion than moderates are governed by the positions taken by others. I can perceive the extremes quite well and I rarely change my position or haven't you noticed.
Of course not. Yours is a flawed analysis as I have pointed out to you before. Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals each have their guiding principles and each of their positions are relative to the others. You are stating the obvious when you say moderate positions are relative to other positions. You are conjuring facts not in evidence when you assume that this obvious relationship results in conservatives and liberals being guided by principle and moderates somehow not. It's a classic non sequitor. No. I'd be a moderate living among liberals, obviously. My personal moderate viewpoint is universal and based on principles of balance and equilibrium. I do not tilt to the left just because others are doing so. The ludicrous idea that a moderate is somehow forced to take a midpoint position based on whatever extremists are around him is laughable. It's completely absurd and you clearly haven't thought this one out. A Black & White universe is your problem, not mine. I don't live in one.
This is a major problem for a lot of folks. They find it neccessary to march in lock step (Goose-step?) to the party drummer in order to be a true republican. This is America. Why can't a person be both pro-choice and anti-gun control? Why can't he be for increased defense spending and against tax cuts for the super-rich. No reason at all . . . other than to be a tool of the political parties. This why I don't belong to a political party. I'm an individual in the Land of Liberty and I can believe in what I want to. I don't have to toe the party line and I don't. I take positions on both sides of the line and vote for candidates from both parties and sometimes a third party.
No, they are not meaningless. The relativity of the three positions is not a function of degree. I just explained this. Do you realize just how ridiculous you sound? Red can't decide his own position! When have I ever had to wait until some person stakes out a position before I could decide mine? The very thought is asinine. I'm a fairly perceptive and intelligent person and I don't need extremists jumping up and down for me to understand what the parameters of the issue are and to know where I stand on it. You, tirk, and Limbaugh are grasping at straws on this one.
obviously not. most everyone in this thread but you seems to understand exactly what im saying. there is no way to be a moderate of 2 extremes without knowing the extremes first. given that, the parameters have to be set before you know where you stand as a moderate. set x and y on a graph in order to find the mean. thats simply what non-extreme defines in mathematical terms. And i dont listen to limbaugh (or martian). maybe he's onto something. how do you have positions on both sides of every political topic argued since the beginning of time? coincidence? you've never had a strong opinion on just one side of the graph? ever? this is flawed due to the simple reason there is no middle ground without (perceived) extremes already in place. unless you just get there by happenstance each time which is impossible. so no, i havent noticed you've ever had an opinion or stance without defining them by relative extremes first which is a function of others already taking a stance. otherwise there is no moderation by definition.
Tirk and martin both seem to be defining a centrist political philosophy. A centrist is always defined by the extremes and must therefore know what the extremes are before taking a stance. That can be moderate political position, but that is not the sole characteristic of moderates. I for instance don't have consistent political leanings. For example I am pro-life and anti death penalty. These two positions would put me on either side of the aisle. I am anti-big government, anti gun control and for less taxation. This would put me on the right side of the aisle. I am also pro-free speech, anti censorship, pro-drug, pro-free trade legalization. These tend to be more left wing ideals. This makes me, overall, a political moderate, without having any centrist leanings.
translation: tirk and martin Is there a point here somewhere? I've already explained that mathematical centerpoints between whatever extremes you care to choose is not what defines a political moderate! I have no idea what you are getting at. Look, I have one position on any individual issue. Occasionally it is dead center, but more often it is to the left or right of center. Usually not far, but occasionally so. However, never to what I consider to be an extreme position, since they are usually untenable. The plotted scatter points of my positions would cluster along a line near the center but with a significant spread to left and right. Smoke and mirrors. I could argue that the extremes are always governed by a pre-existing central issue. You are still trying to determine a moderate as mean of two extremes. It doesn't work that way. Moderates are governed by principles of prudence, balance, and wisdom. These charcteristics inherently resist extremes whether defined or not. Ye, these blessings lead us onto the path of moderation, I will fear no extremist. Amen. Geez, your attention span is short! I posted the actual dictionary definition of moderate on page one. 41% of Americans describe themselves as moderate! There is a lengthy description of moderates on Wikipedia as well. You can't make a widely acknowledged fact go away by insisting it doesn't exist.
this is true. i tried to clarify later that obviously we can all have views that fall somewhere in between of many extreme views but not all. and many can be viewed as moderate. but to claim every view you have falls between extremes is what i disagree with. then you are basing it on another's opinion. otherwise any random person's views would be all over the map.
