i have principles. i believe in aggressive foreign policy. i believe freedom and democracy and capitalism are the solution to the world's problems. i believe the government that governs least, governs best. i believe in market rather than government solutions. i bel;ieve in low taxes and mimimal gov spending. these principles guide my decisions. what are your principles? avoid appearing extreme? pretend to have examined both sides and feel superior to both?
You may know it. No one else can know it unless you can explain it. If you can't explain it, then it is useless, like most abstract thoughts.
I don't lie, I don't steal. I believe in a proper balance, which is not the same as being rotely centrist. I believe in pragmatism in all things. I abhor political ideology and political parties. I believe that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. I believe that a strong nation requires sacrifice from its citizens. i believe in practical and effective foreign policy. I believe freedom and democracy and capitalism are a solution to the world's problems. I can go on and on, but this is enough to show that you are quite wrong.
you are a parody of yourself with these vague declarations. those "principles" can defend any political policy. hitler had a nice "balance" between killing too many jews and not enough. pol pot was a pragmatist. i mean actual principles, not empty nonsense. like when i said i am for minimal government intervention in the economy. thats a principle, based on the way i understand things. "balance" just means a midpoint between other things. balance is, as tirk said, defined by what is on the sides. you are letting the situation dictate your values.
You only recognize your own principles. You are being dishonest, but then again, you are a liar, as evidenced by your Hitler and Pol Pot remarks. And you are an admitted thief. Talk about lack of principles. Your argument has no basis. You simply do not understand what a principle is. Get a dictionary. No different than the principles I listed. You can't lie your way out of this logical trap. Your ignorance is showing. Balance has nothing to do with "midpoints" but with balance points that do not have to be centroids. Balance can be a midpoint. But it does not have to be. It can be far to the right or left of center. Wise up.
like i said, the balance point is defined by the extremes. in fact your little graph demonstrates how one side was more extreme, so the balance point shifted. get some principles, hoss
Making your thesis about midpoints entirely invalid. Find an argument that isn't easily demolished, little joe.
