as pointed out in tirk's original article, moderation is a virtue in terms of drinking or eating and other things. not in political ideas. in politics it only reflects where you stand, relative to the masses. there is no inherent virtue, again, it is arbitrary. they will have a better place to live and better food to eat if you do not take care of them, for the same reason the poor in a communist country are far more poor than our poor.
I'm not arguing for correctness, that is just one of your distractions. Extreme postitions are no more correct and actually a great deal less so. Yes, at one time, arguing for a flat earth was a moderate position. Today, arguing for a spherical earth is a moderate position. Neither are "correct". The earth is actually an oblate ellipsoid. There is no correlation with extreme positions either! Whatever is your point? I maintain that moderate positions are more likely to be correct. Of course, perception is based on perspective, but a moderate position is not arbitrary. In any case "virtue" has nothing to do with the issue. Extreme positions are no more virtuous than moderate ones.
obviously, thats is why we should care what is moderate or extreme, and use a crazy thing called reason to determine our views. and since what is moderate is really just a reflection of the time and place you happen to live in, i guess the correct positions change all the time huh? and it doesnt matter what is "moderate", because you will just claim any stance is moderate anyway (your agnosticism is an example) making the term even more meaningless. again, i am glad to see you using your head. reason is what makes a position or stance on something valuable.
The ability to compromise is a virtue in politics. Some will thrive & be much better off for it, but many others won't. And Liberals don't want anyone to go hungry or without a bed for even one night. They care more about satisfying basic human needs than whether they contribute to the economy & can live well.
i prefer politicians who stand for what they believe in and do not compromise. if this means they cant get anything done, then fine, i bet in most cases whatever was to be done wasnt necessary anyways. ron paul, for instance, is famously known for saying no to every single spending bill, and never compromising. that is good. the free market provides for the poorest of poor better than the government. voluntary charity will always be more effective than welfare. at any rate, our economy is good enough now that you cannot really be hungry, unless you try very very hard. poor people in america are fat.
So conservatives want people to go hungry and without a bed!:thumb: Conservatives are for polluted water, air, etc.:thumb:
Not only that, but the only reason that the majority of people in America are poor is because they are stupid or lazy. Immigrants who don't know the language prove everyday that hard work alone can make you a very comfortable living in America. Screw the poor. If they don't want to help themselves, then why should I be forced to?
Something like 90% of all homeless adults suffer from mental illness. They aren't just lazy & stupid.
Politicians get elected because they can make the most people happy. No politician is going to have the exact same viewpoint on every subject as a majority of the voters. You can say that you'd rather have a politician who doesn't compromise, but where does that leave you when an uncompromising socialist gets voted in? By electing moderate politicians, the conditions are bearable to all. Most people didn't get exactly what they wanted, but it's not the complete opposite of what they wanted & it is tolerable. The free market itself provides nothing to the homeless. The charity of others is what provides for the poor, and Liberals believe that instead of relying on people to take out their own wallet it would be easier if they just took a little bit out of everyone's paycheck to help them. Our poor live very well compared to other countries, they still don't live very well compared to you or I. Liberals believe in equality. Not in totality, but that it's okay to lower the standards of the whole in order to raise the quality of life for the "unfortunate". Once again, I will state that I do not agree with them but this is how they feel. There are facts which go towards these views on each side, but there is not one true answer - only opinions. martin, I think you've just gotten so convinced of your own opinions that you have begun to believe they are actually facts.
