Political Crossfire Forums

[Alizard]

Ozzone wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

I agreed with JLB because of the way I see core beliefs. Core beliefs are primary major issues not specific small issues.

Examples of primary major issues are war, economy and taxes. A moderate will usually not have a core belief on those issues, but will vary on sides depending on the smaller specific issues inside them.

Do you give your bigotry generator any time off?

You decree that "moderates" have no innate beliefs they will defend but just vary depending on smaller issues.

Most would know that defines "politician", not "moderate".... I suppose no conservative ever rolls over and supports a garbage bill to get the pork his state needs through the congress.

It's only MODERATES who have expendable "core beliefs"......

Sure. And "liberals" lost ther war and God told Bush to attack.....

If there are any GOP bigotry points I've missed, please add them.

[Ozzone]

Alizard wrote: Ozzone wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

I agreed with JLB because of the way I see core beliefs. Core beliefs are primary major issues not specific small issues.

Examples of primary major issues are war, economy and taxes. A moderate will usually not have a core belief on those issues, but will vary on sides depending on the smaller specific issues inside them.

Do you give your bigotry generator any time off?

You decree that "moderates" have no innate beliefs they will defend but just vary depending on smaller issues.

Most would know that defines "politician", not "moderate".... I suppose no conservative ever rolls over and supports a garbage bill to get the pork his state needs through the congress.

It's only MODERATES who have expendable "core beliefs"......

Sure. And "liberals" lost ther war and God told Bush to attack.....

If there are any GOP bigotry points I've missed, please add them.

:roll:

[Moracca]

Hey Ozzone, don't worry about what some say in response to your posts. You can take comfort in the fact that someone is just having a hard time adjusting to all of the $4 a bottle prescriptions that the evil empire of Wal-Mart is currently selling. As we advance we tend to become more confused, more in need of drugs and have lighter wallets. This is a toxic combination that sometimes reveals itself in mysterious ways.

[cool_chick]

Moracca wrote: Hey Ozzone, don't worry about what some say in response to your posts. You can take comfort in the fact that someone is just having a hard time adjusting to all of the $4 a bottle prescriptions that the evil empire of Wal-Mart is currently selling. As we advance we tend to become more confused, more in need of drugs and have lighter wallets. This is a toxic combination that sometimes reveals itself in mysterious ways.


:lol:

Speak for yourself. Sounds like you have personal experience or something...

[Moracca]

cool_chick wrote: Moracca wrote: Hey Ozzone, don't worry about what some say in response to your posts. You can take comfort in the fact that someone is just having a hard time adjusting to all of the $4 a bottle prescriptions that the evil empire of Wal-Mart is currently selling. As we advance we tend to become more confused, more in need of drugs and have lighter wallets. This is a toxic combination that sometimes reveals itself in mysterious ways.


:lol:

Speak for yourself. Sounds like you have personal experience or something...

Hmm...actually, I have. Does that make me more dangerous, or less dangerous? :wink:

[Dennis]

Alizard wrote: Ozzone wrote: A moderate is a person that leans left on some issues and leans right on other issues and sometimes doesn't lean at all .

In other words, they don't evaluate issues simply on "left" or "right" and use conscience and reason to decide their position?

God help us if any of those get into the government.

:lol: :lol:

Yes, how terrible. :roll:

[Dennis]

Ozzone wrote: Alizard wrote: Ozzone wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

I agreed with JLB because of the way I see core beliefs. Core beliefs are primary major issues not specific small issues.

Examples of primary major issues are war, economy and taxes. A moderate will usually not have a core belief on those issues, but will vary on sides depending on the smaller specific issues inside them.

Do you give your bigotry generator any time off?

You decree that "moderates" have no innate beliefs they will defend but just vary depending on smaller issues.

Most would know that defines "politician", not "moderate".... I suppose no conservative ever rolls over and supports a garbage bill to get the pork his state needs through the congress.

It's only MODERATES who have expendable "core beliefs"......

Sure. And "liberals" lost ther war and God told Bush to attack.....

If there are any GOP bigotry points I've missed, please add them.

:roll:

Looks like you got them all. :lol: :lol:

[Canada_Rocks]

Vakten wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

Being a Moderate doesn't mean you lack core beliefs.

Being a Moderate only means you've developed your "own" core beliefs in absense of someone telling you what to believe.

I don't mind going along with the crowd every now in then, but sometimes I have to bail...

Case in point.

I can hang with Republicans when it comes to the war, and when it comes to kicking out the illegal aliens, but the second Republicans start talking Free Trade and sending more of our manufactoring sector overseas...I have to get up and find another group to hang out with.

I always feel like I'm being yelled at.

Republicans:"Come with us to fight tyranny in the Middle East!"
Me:OK!

Republicans:"Come with us to secure our southern border!"
Me:OK!

Republicans: "Lets send these jobs to China! We know you like our party because you've come THIS far with us!"
Me: Um...wait a damn minute...!

or....

Democrats: "Lets get out of these unfree trade agreements!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets clean up the environment!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets call this war another Vietnam!"
Me: ...sigh wtf...

Just examples...maybe not "good" examples rofl.

But there is always "something".

Exacly. I am anti-war in general and I like social programs but in contrast, I hate illegals with a passion, I am against gay marriage and I am for traditional family values.

I sometimes have conservatives saying "Is this really Canada_rocks? WTF" simply because I shock em.

It is very easy to follow others and it becomes annoyingly obvious that many do on PCF. Sometimes people will just defend idiotic statements simply becasuse the guy that made them is on their side.

It does make debate difficult since most of my moderate friends views differ so greatly, we tend not to back pat in debates unlike others who have enormous left vs right s**t fling battles on a regular basis.

I might get a Liberal label because I am so against the war and often it is all I argue about but when I get into an illegal immigrent debate I seem like a fascist nut job red neck so yeah, just my 2 cents.

[Alizard]

Canada_Rocks wrote: [
I might get a Liberal label because I am so against the war and often it is all I argue about but when I get into an illegal immigrent debate I seem like a fascist nut job red neck so yeah, just my 2 cents.

I always laugh at that one. All the reactionaries have a "one size fits all" for anybody not like them. They assume anybody against the war is liberal and must be desperately trying to get amnesty for illegals.

The ridiculous part of that bit of ignornace is that kalifornia's general populace is "liberal" and overwhelmingly in favor of vigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

The only politician of note out here tying to advocate turning Kali into Mexico's welfare state is a racist jerk named Cruz Bustamonte (connect the dots on that one for yourself).

He ran for some office in the last election and got STOMPED.....

The "liberals" out here do not subscribe to the aspects most of the ignorant right ascribe to that label.

[Vakten]

Canada_Rocks wrote: Vakten wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

Being a Moderate doesn't mean you lack core beliefs.

Being a Moderate only means you've developed your "own" core beliefs in absense of someone telling you what to believe.

I don't mind going along with the crowd every now in then, but sometimes I have to bail...

Case in point.

I can hang with Republicans when it comes to the war, and when it comes to kicking out the illegal aliens, but the second Republicans start talking Free Trade and sending more of our manufactoring sector overseas...I have to get up and find another group to hang out with.

I always feel like I'm being yelled at.

Republicans:"Come with us to fight tyranny in the Middle East!"
Me:OK!

Republicans:"Come with us to secure our southern border!"
Me:OK!

Republicans: "Lets send these jobs to China! We know you like our party because you've come THIS far with us!"
Me: Um...wait a damn minute...!

or....

Democrats: "Lets get out of these unfree trade agreements!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets clean up the environment!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets call this war another Vietnam!"
Me: ...sigh wtf...

Just examples...maybe not "good" examples rofl.

But there is always "something".

Exacly. I am anti-war in general and I like social programs but in contrast, I hate illegals with a passion, I am against gay marriage and I am for traditional family values.

I sometimes have conservatives saying "Is this really Canada_rocks? WTF" simply because I shock em.

It is very easy to follow others and it becomes annoyingly obvious that many do on PCF. Sometimes people will just defend idiotic statements simply becasuse the guy that made them is on their side.

It does make debate difficult since most of my moderate friends views differ so greatly, we tend not to back pat in debates unlike others who have enormous left vs right s**t fling battles on a regular basis.

I might get a Liberal label because I am so against the war and often it is all I argue about but when I get into an illegal immigrent debate I seem like a fascist nut job red neck so yeah, just my 2 cents.

I can agree with that.

Me and you have had some huge arguments. But at the end of the day, I admit I've never been sure about what end of the spectrum you fell into, and finally I stopped trying to label ya.

As far as JLB, I really get along with the dude on almost all issues until he starts talking about the Economy.

I respect the fact that he knows his stuff on the economy, but frankly...no two economists ever agree on anything. So while he may just "love" free trade and everything about it....I can easily look up and find economists that hate it just as much as I do.

I always look to our past. America didn't turn into a manufactoring superpower because of free trade...

....we turned into one because Jefferson completely stopped all trade.

When Jefferson did that, alot of rich people lost a whole lot of cash...but the end result is we became self sufficient as a nation and created a HUGE manufactoring capacity due to our need to build things for ourselves rather then rely on foreign nations to sell things to us.

I find it odd how quickly Economists like JLB forget that.

I also bet if we turned to more protectionist policies that we'd easily regain our power over nations like China that exploit us. (Maybe we'd even get back some of that work ethic and moral values that Republicans always hollar about.)

[Chingu]

ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

LMAO - that is one interesting take on that Democratic meltdown - I'll tell ya.

In my view, the entire idea (of Pelosi's) of promoting Murtha for a leadership position was an unimaginably idiotic and unthinking bit. Apparently Pelosi, in her rise to fame and power, neglected to live up to her pledge of an ethical and high principled government right off the bat. Murtha, after all, is a scumbag who failed to report criminal activity and attempted bribery and probobly, given the time and a proper work-over by the feds would have been up to his ass in it.

Trent Lott, on the other hand, is a respected leader who has accomplished quite a lot in his time in public service and has no scars of unethical behavior to encumber his. His only fall from grace was a silly humorous remark made that he probably, in hindsight, shouldn't have made, but that was then blown entirely out of proportion by the hateful and mean-spirited left.

And, with the Republicans voting Lott in - they are recognizing the real meaning of the election results which is that they lost power to the Democrats only because they had strayed from their Conservative message and doings in Washington being seen as big Washington insiders rather than as the Conservative prinicpled leaders thay had campaigned to be. So, putting Lott into the leadership of the minority party is responding properly to people whereas, voting down Murtha in favor of a far left guy is just status quo leftist politics. It was also the moderate Dems demonstrating that Murtha's deviant and outlandish war view nonsense is not acceptable to the mainstream.

Now, we get to the real fun part where Pelosi and crew are going to try and put up a whole host of moonbat leftists into positions of power - one of which - as we will continue to hear about, is the excommunicated - impeached ex-federal judge - who was indicted (not prosecuted) and impeached for taking a large bribe while serving on the bench. Pelosi, in her infinite wisdom, wants this joker to serve as the chair on the national intelligence committee. I mean - good Lord - you couldn't choose a worse candidate for that position if you really tried. One is forced to wonder if perhaps, Nanci Pelosi has some ghosts in her closet that she's trying to protect? Hard to tell what's on her mind with these radical promotions? Thatis, if there really is anything on her mind other than a radical left agenda that will not be supported by the people - or even the moderate side of her own party.

One thing is for sure - she's got a lot of houskeeping to do - let's sit back - have a good laugh - and watch her try and sort out the chaos she's created. And, they haven't even officially taken power yet.

[sublime]

ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the democrats did.

Yes. The Dems used the useful "hammer" of "racist" against Mr. Lott based upon some kind of magical reading of his mind as he made statements to make "happy" an aged man. He was an effective leader which made him prime target for the Left to destroy.

Now Lott's back.

Republicans noticed his effectiveness compared to the most recent leadership.......and reinstated him. That shows they learned plenty.

As for the decision against MURTHA, Democrats are busily pretending they are "moderates" and egged on mightily by the Leftwinger press since the election, they didn't DARE have anti-war Murtha in leadership.

While agreeing with Murtha and putting him front and center prior to the election, the leftwinger media and the Dems quickly put on a mask, which they plan to wear through the 2008 election.

Meanwhile, those of us who are paying attention, WILL PAY ATTENTION TO HOW THEY VOTE................... :wink:

[Vakten]

Chingu wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

LMAO - that is one interesting take on that Democratic meltdown - I'll tell ya.

In my view, the entire idea (of Pelosi's) of promoting Murtha for a leadership position was an unimaginably idiotic and unthinking bit. Apparently Pelosi, in her rise to fame and power, neglected to live up to her pledge of an ethical and high principled government right off the bat. Murtha, after all, is a scumbag who failed to report criminal activity and attempted bribery and probobly, given the time and a proper work-over by the feds would have been up to his ass in it.

Trent Lott, on the other hand, is a respected leader who has accomplished quite a lot in his time in public service and has no scars of unethical behavior to encumber his. His only fall from grace was a silly humorous remark made that he probably, in hindsight, shouldn't have made, but that was then blown entirely out of proportion by the hateful and mean-spirited left.

And, with the Republicans voting Lott in - they are recognizing the real meaning of the election results which is that they lost power to the Democrats only because they had strayed from their Conservative message and doings in Washington being seen as big Washington insiders rather than as the Conservative prinicpled leaders thay had campaigned to be. So, putting Lott into the leadership of the minority party is responding properly to people whereas, voting down Murtha in favor of a far left guy is just status quo leftist politics. It was also the moderate Dems demonstrating that Murtha's deviant and outlandish war view nonsense is not acceptable to the mainstream.

Now, we get to the real fun part where Pelosi and crew are going to try and put up a whole host of moonbat leftists into positions of power - one of which - as we will continue to hear about, is the excommunicated - impeached ex-federal judge - who was indicted (not prosecuted) and impeached for taking a large bribe while serving on the bench. Pelosi, in her infinite wisdom, wants this joker to serve as the chair on the national intelligence committee. I mean - good Lord - you couldn't choose a worse candidate for that position if you really tried. One is forced to wonder if perhaps, Nanci Pelosi has some ghosts in her closet that she's trying to protect? Hard to tell what's on her mind with these radical promotions? Thatis, if there really is anything on her mind other than a radical left agenda that will not be supported by the people - or even the moderate side of her own party.

One thing is for sure - she's got a lot of houskeeping to do - let's sit back - have a good laugh - and watch her try and sort out the chaos she's created. And, they haven't even officially taken power yet.

Pelosi promised us this would be the least corrupt congress ever.

The funny thing about it however, is that because of her actions, we're going to wind up with a bilateral conservative majority in the house instead of a Democratic Majority.

So....she's right....this will be a good congress. Only it's in spite of her efforts rather then because of them...

So ironic=0).

[Canada_Rocks]

Vakten wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: Vakten wrote: Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

Being a Moderate doesn't mean you lack core beliefs.

Being a Moderate only means you've developed your "own" core beliefs in absense of someone telling you what to believe.

I don't mind going along with the crowd every now in then, but sometimes I have to bail...

Case in point.

I can hang with Republicans when it comes to the war, and when it comes to kicking out the illegal aliens, but the second Republicans start talking Free Trade and sending more of our manufactoring sector overseas...I have to get up and find another group to hang out with.

I always feel like I'm being yelled at.

Republicans:"Come with us to fight tyranny in the Middle East!"
Me:OK!

Republicans:"Come with us to secure our southern border!"
Me:OK!

Republicans: "Lets send these jobs to China! We know you like our party because you've come THIS far with us!"
Me: Um...wait a damn minute...!

or....

Democrats: "Lets get out of these unfree trade agreements!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets clean up the environment!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets call this war another Vietnam!"
Me: ...sigh wtf...

Just examples...maybe not "good" examples rofl.

But there is always "something".

Exacly. I am anti-war in general and I like social programs but in contrast, I hate illegals with a passion, I am against gay marriage and I am for traditional family values.

I sometimes have conservatives saying "Is this really Canada_rocks? WTF" simply because I shock em.

It is very easy to follow others and it becomes annoyingly obvious that many do on PCF. Sometimes people will just defend idiotic statements simply becasuse the guy that made them is on their side.

It does make debate difficult since most of my moderate friends views differ so greatly, we tend not to back pat in debates unlike others who have enormous left vs right s**t fling battles on a regular basis.

I might get a Liberal label because I am so against the war and often it is all I argue about but when I get into an illegal immigrent debate I seem like a fascist nut job red neck so yeah, just my 2 cents.

I can agree with that.

Me and you have had some huge arguments. But at the end of the day, I admit I've never been sure about what end of the spectrum you fell into, and finally I stopped trying to label ya.

As far as JLB, I really get along with the dude on almost all issues until he starts talking about the Economy.

I respect the fact that he knows his stuff on the economy, but frankly...no two economists ever agree on anything. So while he may just "love" free trade and everything about it....I can easily look up and find economists that hate it just as much as I do.

I always look to our past. America didn't turn into a manufactoring superpower because of free trade...

....we turned into one because Jefferson completely stopped all trade.

When Jefferson did that, alot of rich people lost a whole lot of cash...but the end result is we became self sufficient as a nation and created a HUGE manufactoring capacity due to our need to build things for ourselves rather then rely on foreign nations to sell things to us.

I find it odd how quickly Economists like JLB forget that.

I also bet if we turned to more protectionist policies that we'd easily regain our power over nations like China that exploit us. (Maybe we'd even get back some of that work ethic and moral values that Republicans always hollar about.)

Hehe.. I am a moderate protectionist too!!