I would question the way you phrased this.

"Moderate" isn't a unified political ideology, like that of conservatism or liberalism.  Rather, it's a basket group of people who take bits and pieces from both liberalism and conservatism and mix them together.

Consider the three general "categories" of politics that most issues can be summed up into: economics, foreign policy, and social issues.  A moderate could easily be in favor of liberal foreign and social policies, yet conservative on economics (foreign policy takes the form of peaceful diplomacy, wielding global power through trade and commerce rather than military might).

Then again, a moderate could be on the complete opposite end of the spectrum, favoring liberal economic policies, yet conservative foreign and social policies (all foreign nations, being of political difference from us, are a potential threat, as the inevitable end result of disagreeing philosophies is conflict.  Therefore, cooperation with those right-wing nutjobs is impossible.  The only choice is the sword).

Then again, even this assumes that ALL foreign policy, economic policy, and social policy beliefs are held together.  I could easily mix and match ideas within each category.  For example, I could believe in wielding a strong military, yet still retain an extremely strict code on rules of engagement, treatment of prisoners, etc.  Or I could believe in banning abortion, yet retaining gay marriage.

The point is, ideologies aren't "with us or with the terrorists."  Your framing of "moderates" as a unified group that can be defined is... well... dumb.

@ Zarf

My framing of Moderates ??  ROFL.    Makes me dumb ??

I didnt realize I framed what a Moderate is.

I think, ZARF, that the DUMB statement is yours.......unless you can show me where I "Framed" what a "Moderate" is.
Can you ??

@ Avo.

Im asking, YOU , a self-Profess Moderate, ..... Who Zarf calls "Dumb" by the way,.....

What are the top 3 Issues to you, and what is your stand on each...... 

Bascially, People have 3 issues that define them.  That they are REALLY passionate about.
So the pollsters say.

I may be against Abortion....but Im not as freaked on that as I am about Low taxes, low Govt. spending.....follow ?

> Black_Wing wrote:

> @ Zarf

My framing of Moderates ??  ROFL.    Makes me dumb ??

I didnt realize I framed what a Moderate is.

I think, ZARF, that the DUMB statement is yours.......unless you can show me where I "Framed" what a "Moderate" is.
Can you ??

Oh?  I accept your challenge!

"Ole' BW will then ask you a couple of counter questions, if You allow me to, and I will tell you what you are."

That means:
A: There is a definition of "moderate" with definite boundaries to define who is and who isn't a moderate.  Unless your counterquestions were "are you sure?," followed by a "Yup, you're a moderate" against every single person here, in which case this thread is just stupid.
B: You know the definition of a moderate, unless of course if you were going to randomly guess.

No, you didn't define a "moderate" yet.  I never said you did.  However, I did say that you created the image of a clear definiton of a "moderate," which I am contesting.

"Im asking, YOU , a self-Profess Moderate, ..... Who Zarf calls "Dumb" by the way,..... "

What the hell?  That's utter bull.  Here's the quote:

"Your framing of "moderates" as a unified group that can be defined is... well... dumb."

That's definitely not referring to people as dumb.  It refers to the idea behind this thread as dumb.  And I never even said you were dumb.  It's a "love the sinner, yet hate the sin" type of thing. 

Avo, that had nothing to do with you... try again.

Oh look, did I see BW flamng someone who argued against him instead of showing reason and intellect to engage in a debate?

I am actually with Zarf here, ther eis no such thing as a defined moderate, and in fact I would argue there is no such thing as a defined conservative or socialist or anything. People chose to identify with each of these (and the many other) labels to make them seem like they are part of a group (a society, power in numbers...) even if their own personal frame of refference is slightly different to the others in their group. Most people, esp most people on this board, will even go further and further define their personal belief further, such as 'goold ole BW' with his regan conservitive as opposed to just straight conservative. He feels the need to seperate himself out into a different group, his own indivudual group inside the main group. Together but seperate.

And yes I am sure you all can see where I am going with it, so I won't spell it out....

In any event  I amintain that every person who is politically active enough to think about their philosophy on politics (which by no means is every person on earth,) would have their own definition which they link to a main grouping (or not so main.) A liberal might think of himself as a liberal who supports the death penalty, and have his own term for that, whilst another might consider themselves conservitive but desire universal health care and they will have their own label for what they are....

Probably someone that takes, or thinks along of the lines of, the middle way/path.

[Off topic]
BW the site is
www.investopedia.com

Look for and join "IC Stock Competition"
[On topic]

I don't feel like answering right now , but I'm probably slightly right of center. 

[great I'm answering]
I believe in moderately sized government.  That is some social programs are needed but as was done during the later stages of the great depression if you are recieveing aid from the government you must also put in some work for the governemnt.  Only slight problem is that this system may be abused and reduce the number of legitimate governmental employes replacing them with cheaper wealfare labor.  Things like a farm bill should be almost ocmpletely removed unless inc ases of natural disasters to help with the recovery.  Particularly the farm bill should help smaller farmers primarily as larger farmers have sufficeint colletoral to work it out with banks.  Some free clinical services shoudl be provided but universial health care is almost certainly a pipe dream.  People would have a tendency of going to the doctor more than they have to causing a sever backlog.  At a minimum some amount of minor payment should be maintained.  Alternatively an economically need based system could be possible.

Generally abortion is wrong and should be generally illegal.  Ofcourse the excepetions is when the person is raped, and with a "panel" choice if the mother's life is truely in danger then also.  But in this case the mother should be highly encouraged to get one of thos operations that prevent pregnancy or at a minimum the reversible devices.  Contraceptives should be widely available and true sex education should be given in schools including the risks and rewards of sex.  Particularly a highlighting of some of the negative consequencies [to limit under aged sex]

Great it's tough choosing between the military and taxes.  I'll go with taxes as it is easiest.

The rich should be taxed more.  Not because there is anything wrong with being rich but simply because they have mroe and so can provide for more resources.  This system should have a very gentle slope so that the reward for earning the next 100K isn't wiped out by the increased tax burden.  I would suggest a much simplier tax system.  Perhaps almost a sliding % based one with next to no deductions.  Perhaps allowances could be made for children, but with proper education people would realize the true cost of child raring.  A consumption tax is idocy as the poor have a much lower saving rate and so this would actually be a tax increase on those least able to afford it.

I wish I was a moderate! That way I can actually enjoy birthday party discussions. Now I'm always the one who gets his ass chewed off.  "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN DEVELOPMENT AID!?  A-HOLE!"

-_-

At first it's quite cool, but in the end everyone ends up pissed off.  X(

Luckily I do not discuss politics on birthday parties of family members, or I'd be a pariah!

No contradiction there.  While I don't perscribe to the political spectrum, others do.  That's why I said "a few people," not myself.  They have a definition of "moderate," and believe I fit it, just like you have a definition of it, even though I don't.  I may disagree with the fact that a definition exists, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to acknowledge that others have a definition.

That's like if I said "I don't consider myself a liberal, yet Black_Wing does consider me a liberal."  Would that be a contradiction of my own statements?  No, it would just be a contradiction between my view of myself and your view of me...

Oh, and by the way, were you planning on addressing my prior statements, or are you conceding my arguments?

@ Zarf

Im still waiting for you to tell me what my definition of a "Centrist" or a "Moderate" is ??

Again....for the 2nd time you write:
>>  ". . .just like you have a definition of it [moderate, centrist], even though I don't.

Where is my definition ?   Where did I give a definition ?

> Black_Wing wrote:

> @ Zarf

Im still waiting for you to tell me what my definition of a "Centrist" or a "Moderate" is ??

Again....for the 2nd time you write:
>>  ". . .just like you have a definition of it [moderate, centrist], even though I don't.

Where is my definition ?   Where did I give a definition ?

You never gave a definition yet.  But you have one.  That's what I'm contesting.  "Moderate" and "centrist" have no real definition, yet you claim to be able to root out the "moderates" and "centrists" from others.

As for "didn't know we were arguing..." then what would you call this?  (No, don't say "a debate," because then I may bang my head against a wall until I'm too mentally handicapped to post a reply...)