Moderate?

Well, I certainly don't think we should ALL be moderate. Because if we're all one thing, that's fascism, isn't it? I'm also not so sure that there's an increasing move towards American Centrism... that there is all that much of a middle, anymore. What's your source for that - I premuse, until you tell me otherwise - opinion?

As for the rest of it, I want to think about that for a few days. I definitely don't consider myself anywhere NEAR the political middle, but I respect people who are. Just as I respect people who are far right. I don't agree with them, necessarily, but I still respect their right to feel however they do.

But, yeah. Let me think about it a little more. And I'd really love to know your source for this growth of the American Middle.

We were discussing it in my english class and my professor said that there is an increasing number of Moderate sentiments out there then there was before

I think that there has been a rise in "moderates" over the last few years. I'd hate to blame it on Fox News, but it seems like it started around the time that they did...
It seems like there are more people who have trouble identifying with either party. Those of us who look at individual issues on our own terms instead of looking towards some party's (or candidate's) platform.
I, for one, was raised in a very republican home, and was a pretty opinionated GOP fan, myself. Nowadays, there's not much that republicans do that don't piss me off...though, I suppose when I say "republicans" what I really mean is "Bush Administration." I just don't enjoy getting repeatedly lied to.
The thing is, I don't necessarily agree with the damn communist democrats either (kidding). I'm sort of at a loss, because the Dem. candidates for president aren't looking too much more appealing than the incumbent at this point. (Though, if I had to choose, I'd definitely go for Leiberman).

I don't know why I'm babbling about my own politics...my point is YES-I think there are more moderates than there used to...it's a regular thorn in the side of the Two-Party System.

That's cool, ahaffel. And I agree with you, for the most part. Especially about people looking more towards issues instead of towards parties when they pick their candidates. And I think you hinted at a much, much, much larger problem then the issue of where people are sitting in the two party system. That being, why is their ONLY a two party system in a land that claims itself a democrazy?

I voted for Nader in 2000. I voluntered on his campaign, and I even got to talk to him one-on-one for a few minutes when he came through Michigan. He's someone I most definitely would have liked to see in office. I'm tired of BOTH sides of the political game saying the same things: that we need to do this in this other country, and we need to occupy and kick these people out (even though we sold them weapons, what? Twenty years ago?).

I'd like to see a candidate that focussed on the problems we have here in America before we go out and save the world. And I'll tell you, I really, really wrestly with that feeling. Because there's part of me that feels like it's prejudice against the rest of the world. Like, "We come first," or something. But goodness - if we can't get it right "at home," how the hell does anyone expect us to get it right somewhere else?

ArcherDylan, could you do me a favor? Ask your teacher what THEIR source for the surge in American centrism is. Ask them where they got their information. And if they can't tell you, call them on it. Ask, "Well, if you don't know where your information is coming from, what right do you have to share it with us?"

I'd love to know what happens then.

Will-
I've seen Nader speak (in a pretty small venue), but never talked to him myself. I always felt that he had a lot of good ideas, but he also had a few that were very, very unrealistic and/or BAD. (Phasing out fossil fuels is one thing...doing it as fast as he would like is something vastly different.)
Also, his plan for cutting huge amounts of military spending wouldn't have been such a good thing during the past 4 years (not that he'd have gone to war in Iraq...but the Afghanistan thing sorta HAD to happen.)
2004 will be my first shot at voting for president, and I refuse to vote for GWBush. I'm running the risk of hating the other candidates...and just abstaining from voting...but it's the way I feel. I just wish that John Kerry would go the hell away, and Leiberman would start to pick up the pace a bit.
I like Joey L. because he's a more moderate kind of guy...I always prefer sensibility. (We just have to pray he stops being so buddy-buddy with Hillary Clinton if he's elected.)
I'm starting to babble again, it's 4.01 AM...I'm done. G'night.

You're all wrong.
How wrong?
Dead wrong!

That's cool, ahaffel. I hope you sleep well. I'm really happy to see that this section (MOSTLY, ahem) is turning into what I hoped it would: a place where the educated (MOSTLY again, ahem ahem) could come and get into some open, honest debate that might cast some further enlightenment on the people reading it.

I hope next time you check in that you could maybe expound a little bit on your views. Like, why did the war in Afghanastan HAVE to happen? And even far more so, what's so wrong with rushing to stop our abuse of fossil fuels? That's something I've read a bit about, and not only am I convinced that the war in Iraq was completely over oil (we'd be bombing the fuck out of North Korea right this very minute if they were sitting on oil), but I know a number of environmentalists say we only have a grand total of about 20-30 years of oil left, if we continue to use it at our current rate.

There's something about Lieberman that just rubs me the wrong way, and I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think it has something to do with the same sort of insincerity that I sensed from Al Gore. During the 2000 election I thought, "Fuck yeah! A Jewish Vice President!" Not that that means anything in the big picture, but I liked the idea of the country moving forward, even in such a small way. Similiar to JFK being elected when he was an Irish Catholic (and critics feared America would be run by the Pope).

Leiberman also voted for the war, and that's something I just can't agree with, no matter how I twist it in my head.

Okay, now I gotta go to bed too. Night to all of you.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by aheffel [/i]
[B]Will-
I've seen Nader speak (in a pretty small venue), but never talked to him myself. I always felt that he had a lot of good ideas, but he also had a few that were very, very unrealistic and/or BAD. (Phasing out fossil fuels is one thing...doing it as fast as he would like is something vastly different.)
Also, his plan for cutting huge amounts of military spending wouldn't have been such a good thing during the past 4 years (not that he'd have gone to war in Iraq...but the Afghanistan thing sorta HAD to happen.)
2004 will be my first shot at voting for president, and I refuse to vote for GWBush. I'm running the risk of hating the other candidates...and just abstaining from voting...but it's the way I feel. I just wish that John Kerry would go the hell away, and Leiberman would start to pick up the pace a bit.
I like Joey L. because he's a more moderate kind of guy...I always prefer sensibility. (We just have to pray he stops being so buddy-buddy with Hillary Clinton if he's elected.)
I'm starting to babble again, it's 4.01 AM...I'm done. G'night. [/B][/QUOTE]

All Lieberman is, is a republican in Democrat clothing.

How has the military helped our country in the past 4 years, just tell me how, cutting military spending would have been great, and it wouldn't have affected the war in Afghanistan.

Phasing out fossil fuels is extremly important, some estimate that in 10-15 years we will be out of oil, and what does that mean for you, it means no heat, no transportation, and most importantly no plastic. I mean can you imagine what would happen if in one instant the world had to get off of Oil... it's very inportant that the transition happen as soon as possible, why do we have to wait until it's all gone, why do we have to keep wasting the planet.

The first thing we need is a fiscal conservative in the white house... the tax cuts need to go away, and yes i mean all of them, even your measly $300 checks. After jobs are created(I don't know anything about job creation, although it looks like maybe Bush won't leave the White house with the country in such horrible disarray, since job creation is up), we need to go after national health care.

There areso many countries who are not as wealthy as us who have national health care, now it's time to adopt it, with the baby boomers dying off it won't be so bad economically, there are too many people in this country that can't afford decent healthcare and there is only so much Oprah can do.

The best candidate in my opinion is Kucinich, he has alot of great ideas, I would settle for Dean though.

Oh and who gives a shit about Kerry he's not going to win the primaries.

As for moderates, I don't think moderates are something we need more of, if everyone were a moderate than nothing would evolve or change, liberals and conservatives keep things moving, but people without any agenda only hinder that.

with national health care in other countries people are taxed as much as 50% of their pay check for national privileges such as that. i think a lot of people would like it and a lot wouldnt. it would be hard to get everybody on the same page

because im stupid and not as smart as tupper-inc's mascot the cougar. could some-one please explain to me what th ehell we are tlaking about?
there was some mention of left and right, which i associated with wings. so if far left is hippie, far right is hitler. middle is both?

I think I agree with Will on everything he's said here. Poetry too, for the most part.

As for the original topic - awhile back it certainly seemed like we were getting very very right wing - and the whole country seemed to think this was a move towards centrism. It's just like Chomsky said - limit the forum of debate, yet keep it extremely lively and emphasize the 'extremes' of this limited viewpoint and you create the illusion that there is a truly free arena, when there isn't at all. And this seems to be the case with many people thinking we're becoming more moderate, when in actuality we are very right wing.

Lately, though, the few times I've actually caught TV news, it seems like things are a little better. However, it still seems like it's in this limited arena. Nobody will come out and say this or that and be honest about things, but they'll hint that they don't agree with this or that, giving the impression that there is media dissent. It just feels like a ruse, though.

Should everyone be moderate? Absolutely not.

I'm a moderate. I use to be insanely uber-liberal.

Then I grew up and realized that 'liberalism' has the same fucking pecking order, same fucking requirement of beliefs and fanniticalism that the far righty right does.

I guess my point is that I'm moderate.

Liberals are far too romantic and non-sequential in their thinking

Conservatives are too uptight

[IMG]http://www.consumersbeverages.com/brew/images/pointing-guy.gif[/IMG]

MODERATION is Key!

Alright. Lets take a step back for a miniute.

Being Moderate is about being open minded.

We don't lock ourselves up into belief instituitons and obey the gospel of Chomsky and Zinn.

In my opinion Moderates are much more open minded to new ideas then either liberals or conservatives. We take ideas and apply them to our lifes. We're fucking realists.

Liberals just want heaven on earth. Liberalism is basically fruity Christian ideals slow baked and deep fried.

Prased be our Martyr, our Jesus Christ, Mumia Abu-Jamal!

Amen!

Let us be baptized by our savior, whos word is so right.

Liberals got their own cannon of books, they have their own prescribed ideas.

I'm going to start selling cookie cutter liberal start up kits.

In this kit you get:
3 copies of A People's History of The United States.

Thats it. Good luck, Zinn will be watching over you.

[img]http://www.pulldoggies.com/images/irony.jpg[/img]

moderate = pussies
make you fucking mind up

what i think archer's teacher is getting at is that the once "hot topics", such as abortion, gun control, equal rights, etc. are no longer defined by party lines. in the past, if you were pro-choice you were democrat; no gun control = republican. these days, issues are so much more pick-and-choose, candidates can be at once pro-choice and against gun control; it's often mistaken for moderation.

moe, i think it's sad that many of these issues have become politicized. abortion, gun control, durgs, etc are hardly political issues. still, the voting public, sheep, rather, want to have their elected officals sympathize with their points of view. yet another example of how we are fooled into thinking our government is a democracy.

i guess we have to define moderate
when i hear it i think like "equal rights for gays, but not marriage"
thats halfass bullshit

but if moderate means not followed a single party's lines then yeah that's cool

r u teh gay klop old chummy chum chum?

no

It really is, actually.

I think the picture I originally posted in response to that post I quoted - got fuxed up.

It was a police dog biting a police man.

GET IT?

moderta is not equal to being open minded
moderate is equal to beingnot extreme