You_Fool, I'm honestly flattered...

I was actually thinking of making a new thread on the topic.  Once I get the time...

Einstein:
That word is called "efficiency"

OMG reading that sumup of rightwing selfpitiness i really get scared, we can only hope mentally healthy americans dont have the same view on things.  Its also quite selfcontridicting..

So many flaws i cant relally be bothered with all, but ill grab a few.

1. Media has choosen a side? Originally most news sources was founded with a principle of some sort. Now that can be both leftwing and rightwing, but the media as a whole is not a joint unit, and can therefor neither take a stance. The overall focus on the media will over time represent the view of the population.

2. Women are believed over men? In any wester nation women are generally trusted with less responsibilities and have less empowering positions than men. If you are talking about legal disputes in court, the the judges job is to rule the way that is most likely given the testemoneys and evidence provided. The judge then also has to take into account the credibility of the witnesses. If youre thinking about child custody, then they also have to consider wich parent will provide the child the best care. (wich is why many fathers end up with less)

@ Noir

Sure, we ALL believe in Social stability and Equality....I would say that Separatists, and bigots are in the extreme.
I believe all should be on an equal playing field....in all areas of life......through competition.

I Believe in the free market system.

I dont believe GOVT. can be efficient and if inefficient, it cannot be fair.

How do you see this "equality"  Through Govt. controls, Taxation/redistribution and Govt. intervention, Programs....
Or....through the free market w/o any Govt. intervention.....only penalty for those that are not fair ?

Example of oversight of "unfair" practice.  In the US, we have the Equal rights clauses, and watch groups for minorities and Woman to make sure they are not discriminated against. 
There is a Public education system that private institutions BEG for students to join them from through Community scholorships (yes the evil rich donate) and Alumni participation and academic scholorship from the individual schools.

No one is left behind who works hard and excells in the US.  No matter what social or ethnic situation they are in.

@ you Euros......respond w/your country if you can.........respond in the macro, not specifically.

Are not you in Europe fead up w/your so called "Free" Medical systems ?

I tell you, I dont find many Americans unhappy w/the Free US Health Care system.
The Media seems to find a few, here and there....that gets world wide attention.
But, on the flip side, We in America get the horror stories of lacking health care stories from Europe and Canada and Down Under.

Lets stay focused on the Macro though........

@ Zarf.

You wont find my "Definition" of Moderate/Centrist.   You made an assumption that is flawed, because you have no clue what my "Definition" is.

I want to weed out a few more questions, to specify my conclusion.

* * * * * * *

Im bouncing my position off of your answers guys.  I know its only a few of you, but I will sum my position on what is a Centrist/Moderate.

>>No one is left behind who works hard and excells in the US.  No matter what social or ethnic situation they are in.<<

Spoken like a true rich white male....

Anyway BW, do you want to debate the existance of these labels here? or has Zarf gone and made the more intelligent thread?

I can wait...

most people who label themselves as centrists or moderates are left of you bw, doesn't make them socialist...

Oh also doesn't change the fact that you had a definition for the label centralist, even if all it was is someone who thinks more intellectulaly and socially responsibly than you. Labels and definitions are still labels and definitions...

Even if I accept it, the same argument would now be applicable to your definition of "liberal."

1: Whether or not I accept your argument isn't the point.  I was only saying that, even if I agree with you, my criticism of your thread stands.
2: Now there's no way in hell that you're going to say that you don't have a definition of "liberal" without roasting in hell for lying. 

Yes, I had a criticism of this thread.  It was called "the first post I made."

As a recap: The argument was that grouping people ideologically under unbrella terms like "moderate" is absolute bullshit, because it forcibly brackets people together who do not share the same philosophy.

Now, the major development up until now is that you have explained your position on the term "moderate:" that it doesn't exist.  Alright, I'll concede this.

But that means you group anyone who is not a "conservative" in one broad "liberal" category, including everyone from John Kerry to John McCain within the same ideology.  This skews the public perception of each candidate, hurting the democratic process because the political labels begin to define the candidates, rather than the candidates themselves.

John Kerry serves as a sweet example of this.  His label was pretty much standing as the liberal within that election.  Who did the anti-Iraq war crowd support in the election?  Kerry.  Did Kerry support the Iraq War?  As a whole, yes, although he did disagree on issues like UN participation, funding, and tactical issues.  Logically, it makes no sense for the anti-war crowd to vote for Kerry.  However, they did, in fact affirming the Iraq war's legitimacy (Let's not get into an Iraq war debate.  The only issue I'm referencing here is voter perceptions).

Honestly, I would agree with You_Fool's interpretation that all labels are inherently flawed.  But for now, I'm just taking on the overly broad ones, like the one you created with "liberal" now.

@Acolyte

1: How can you say that a Europe-style socialist system (national health care, welfare system) is the same thing as a much less extreme, yet still not laissez-faire, system (taxes and subsidies on certain goods, or "sin taxes," so to speak)?  Even if their justification is the exact same, grouping them all together screws you up because it forces me, who agrees with you on some issues, yet not others, to identify with those who unabashedly hate your theory, because you isolate me even though our disagreement is slight.

2: Socialism and capitalism aren't the only two economic systems in existence.  Not by a long shot.  They're just the most publicized systems.

1: No, never said that John McCain is a conservative.  However, saying that John McCain has all the same beliefs as, say, Ted Kennedy is just wrong.  Remember, to share an ideology, two people have to be in full agreement in all issues defined by that ideology.  In other words, if I can find just one thing McCain disagrees with Kennedy on, they wouldn't be of the same ideology.

Then again, this shows a second fallacy of ideologies.  What is the litmus test for what defines an ideology?

Who is the perfect liberal that holds every ideal which is "liberal," whom all others shall be compared with?  Who is the perfect conservative at that?  While many people claim to follow liberalism or conservatism, there will almost always be one political issue in which two people claiming a general ideal will disagree.  Then you're faced with this delima:

If both people, disagreeing with each other on an issue governed by conservatism, are still both "conservatives," then the word conservative has no meaning because it can be molded, twisted, and transformed, yet retain its name.

If one person is right, who is it?  There's no universally accepted yardstick for what is a "conservative."

2: I never said that to support the Iraq war, you have to be a conservative.  I said the following:
Bush supports the war in Iraq.
Kerry supports the war in Iraq.
The vast majority of people who considered "The Iraq war is bad" to be the #1 issue in the 2004 election voted for Kerry.  Meanwhile, those who disagreed, yet considered Iraq to be the main issue in the election, voted for Bush.
Logically, that shouldn't have been an issue because there was no disagreement between the candidates.  The war opposition would have chosen a third party candidate, or would have used another issue to vote.  The war supporters would probably vote based on the details of the war, such as tactics, the UN role in the war, etc., issues which they really did disagree.

This isn't labeling anyone.  The closest to a label of conservatism and liberalism that I'm using is that supposed conservatives tended to be associated with support for the Iraq war, while supposed liberals tended to be associated with opposition to the Iraq war.

Why?  Political ideologies create guilt by association.  Supposedly, since two people follow the same ideals, they agree with one another on the issues related to those ideals.  Therefore, if one person within that ideal has a particular belief, wouldn't everyone within that ideal have that belief?

This all comes down to one ending call: stop labeling people based on their political ideology.  Two supposed "liberals" can disagree with one another, which means the term "liberal" does not have any meaning as its very definition is an ideology, which apparently would not exist.

You_Fool may not be a liberal, Black_Wing may not be a conservative, and I may not be... um... whatever the hell I am, not necessarily because any of us are necessarily "wrong," while the ideology is "right," but because there's no measurement for what those ideologies believe on every issue, and thus you can't define the terms.  Rather, the only ideology any individual can be truly sure that they believe is whatever ideology... that individual believes.  You believe what you believe, basically, and that's the only way you can be certain that you're correctly telling someone what you believe.  Rather than trying to place labels on people, whether you agree or disagree with them overall, or even if that person is yourself, debate people on the issues, and create, or reinforce, your own views accordingly.  Ideological labeling doesn't accurately reflect individuals, nor does it prove or disprove any political issues, so there's no productive ends to it.