Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Nothing?

Sound more like a bunch of liberals to me...

How do you define a moderate?

Moderates do not see politics as warfare. Instead, national politics is a voyage with a fractious fleet. Wisdom is finding the right formation of ships for each specific circumstance so the whole assembly can ride the waves forward for another day. Moderation is not an ideology; it’s a way of coping with the complexity of the world. Moderates tend to embrace certain ideas:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/o ... cebook.com

Liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy.

No, you're not attracted to labels, kalm.

CAA Flagship wrote:No, you're not attracted to labels, kalm.

Hey, Düsseldorf. All I've said is "labels are tricky".

Shut your conk-ass pie hole.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:No, you're not attracted to labels, kalm.

Hey, Düsseldorf. All I've said is "labels are tricky".

Shut your conk-ass pie hole.

I value independent thought more than "moderation". There are certainly some issues that are obviously really complicated and require nuance (e.g. immigration). There are also issues where I'm going to unapologetically take a side.

Examples:
1. Most of what the left wants to do with gun control is pointless, feel-good crap.
2. Same-Sex marriage won't lead to legal sex between adults and prepubescent children.
3. Affirmative action is a system of quotas that aren't called quotas and isn't logically or morally justifiable.
4. Cannabis-based medicine is superior to poppy-based medicine.
5. Women do not make less money than men because of sexism.

Gil Dobie wrote:Liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy.

Unless said "social" policy impacts fiscal policy (read: welfare, long-term unemployment benefits, etc., etc.).

AZGrizFan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy.

Unless said "social" policy impacts fiscal policy (read: welfare, long-term unemployment benefits, etc., etc.).

I don't consider those social policy, as that would be taken care of under fiscal policy.

Pwns wrote:I value independent thought more than "moderation". There are certainly some issues that are obviously really complicated and require nuance (e.g. immigration). There are also issues where I'm going to unapologetically take a side.

Examples:
1. Most of what the left wants to do with gun control is pointless, feel-good crap.
2. Same-Sex marriage won't lead to legal sex between adults and prepubescent children.
3. Affirmative action is a system of quotas that aren't called quotas and isn't logically or morally justifiable.
4. Cannabis-based medicine is superior to poppy-based medicine.
5. Women do not make less money than men because of sexism.

You continually surprise me in the most interesting ways

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:I value independent thought more than "moderation". There are certainly some issues that are obviously really complicated and require nuance (e.g. immigration). There are also issues where I'm going to unapologetically take a side.

Examples:
1. Most of what the left wants to do with gun control is pointless, feel-good crap.
2. Same-Sex marriage won't lead to legal sex between adults and prepubescent children.
3. Affirmative action is a system of quotas that aren't called quotas and isn't logically or morally justifiable.
4. Cannabis-based medicine is superior to poppy-based medicine.
5. Women do not make less money than men because of sexism.

You continually surprise me in the most interesting ways

huh?

I'm wondering if maybe the whole pro-life thing throws you off (it certainly seems to do that with 89hen).

I haven't really had a problem with same-sex marriage in years, and I've been vocal here that it's stupid that opioids are being given out like candy while the medical evidence strongly shows cannabis-based medicine is safer and less addictive.

Pwns wrote:I'm wondering if maybe the whole pro-life thing throws you off (it certainly seems to do that with 89hen).

It sure does.

kalm wrote:How do you define a moderate?

You're willing to accept new information and modify your viewpoint on any issue rather than double down on everything because you're right and the other side is wrong/evil/insane/fascist/WTAG


Also you're pro-life but hate the shit out of all religions

Silenoz wrote:

kalm wrote:How do you define a moderate?

You're willing to accept new information and modify your viewpoint on any issue rather than double down on everything because you're right and the other side is wrong/evil/insane/fascist/WTAG


Also you're pro-life but hate the shit out of all religions

With all due respect, the other side is always WTAG.

Pwns wrote:I value independent thought more than "moderation". There are certainly some issues that are obviously really complicated and require nuance (e.g. immigration). There are also issues where I'm going to unapologetically take a side.

Examples:
1. Most of what the left wants to do with gun control is pointless, feel-good crap.
2. Same-Sex marriage won't lead to legal sex between adults and prepubescent children.
3. Affirmative action is a system of quotas that aren't called quotas and isn't logically or morally justifiable.
4. Cannabis-based medicine is superior to poppy-based medicine.
5. Women do not make less money than men because of sexism.

Pwns is really close to the mark here - being a moderate doesn't mean not taking a side, it just means, like he said, independently thinking about it and ending up having views that sometimes sync with the libs and sometimes sync with the conks (and yes, sometimes finding a middle ground when those two sides go extreme in opposite directions).

CAA Flagship wrote:

Silenoz wrote: You're willing to accept new information and modify your viewpoint on any issue rather than double down on everything because you're right and the other side is wrong/evil/insane/fascist/WTAG


Also you're pro-life but hate the shit out of all religions

With all due respect, the other side is always WTAG.

Go fvck a cannoli.

Pwns wrote:

Chizzang wrote:


You continually surprise me in the most interesting ways

huh?

I'm wondering if maybe the whole pro-life thing throws you off (it certainly seems to do that with 89hen).

I haven't really had a problem with same-sex marriage in years, and I've been vocal here that it's stupid that opioids are being given out like candy while the medical evidence strongly shows cannabis-based medicine is safer and less addictive.

You're pretty damn fascinating
I feel like I disagree with you fairly often
but then I see that's actually not true - but to what degree I just don't know

Gil Dobie wrote:Liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy.

What about conservative on social policy and liberal on fiscal policy?

Silenoz wrote:

kalm wrote:How do you define a moderate?

You're willing to accept new information and modify your viewpoint on any issue rather than double down on everything because you're right and the other side is wrong/evil/insane/fascist/WTAG


Also you're pro-life but hate the **** out of all religions

Easier to just say "You're willing to flip flop on any issue"

BDKJMU wrote:

Silenoz wrote: You're willing to accept new information and modify your viewpoint on any issue rather than double down on everything because you're right and the other side is wrong/evil/insane/fascist/WTAG


Also you're pro-life but hate the **** out of all religions

Easier to just say "You're willing to flip flop on any issue"

Because everything is black-and-white like that. It's more like you're willing to slide around a scale, not jump to the other side of a coin...

BDKJMU wrote:

Silenoz wrote: You're willing to accept new information and modify your viewpoint on any issue rather than double down on everything because you're right and the other side is wrong/evil/insane/fascist/WTAG


Also you're pro-life but hate the **** out of all religions

Easier to just say "You're willing to flip flop on any issue"

This ^ is classic BDKJMU sh!t posting right here...



Yes BDKJMU the learning process should be abolished
Which is precisely the way ISIS feels also
it's amazing how much you have in common with Radical Islam

BDKJMU wrote:

Silenoz wrote: You're willing to accept new information and modify your viewpoint on any issue rather than double down on everything because you're right and the other side is wrong/evil/insane/fascist/WTAG


Also you're pro-life but hate the **** out of all religions

Easier to just say "You're willing to flip flop on any issue"

Call it whatever you want. I've changed my position on several issues over the years.

BDKJMU wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy.

What about conservative on social policy and liberal on fiscal policy?

The Unicorn Party

BDKJMU wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy.

What about conservative on social policy and liberal on fiscal policy?

That's basically a Republican.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chizzang wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Easier to just say "You're willing to flip flop on any issue"

This ^ is classic BDKJMU sh!t posting right here...



Yes BDKJMU the learning process should be abolished
Which is precisely the way ISIS feels also
it's amazing how much you have in common with Radical Islam

Evolving on matters is of course a good thing, and an indicator that someone may be thinking independently

But there is a tendency to look at politicians "evolving" through a different lens - because it is easier to believe (and more likely) that independent thought has little to do with changing political positions- when you have to get reelected every 4 or so years

Nobody believes Hillary Clinton EVER truly evolved on anything as a result of thinking independently

On a related topic- over the years I have become more libertarian - not because my belief system has changed, but simply because thinking about those beliefs has opened up new questions - which ultimately led to changes in my positions

A good example is gay marriage. Years ago I was opposed to it. When I challenged myself as to WHY I was opposed to it, my strongest feelings on the matter had to do with things like government benefits, estates, civil issues

That led me to question WHY government needed to be involved in giving people permission to marry in the first place - which led me to realize that I never really objected to gay marriage in the first place -

Applying that litmus test - "should government be doing this in the first place?" is usually my starting point now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chizzang wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Easier to just say "You're willing to flip flop on any issue"

This ^ is classic BDKJMU sh!t posting right here...



Yes BDKJMU the learning process should be abolished
Which is precisely the way ISIS feels also
it's amazing how much you have in common with Radical Islam

What? Not being a flip flopper = the learning process should be abolished. That's some gigantic leap right there, Capt Hyperbole..