The Moderate's Club

[Don Corleone]

Hey, you're more than welcome to post in the Conservative Club anytime you like. Our leather wingback chairs, Cuban cigars & collection of fine ports are available to all. As I said, Jag is probably in the top 5 list of posters in it.

See, I don't know what the 'Moderate Club' even looks like yet. We've got pretty vivid imagery of the Conservative Club as well as the Liberal Club, or the Progressive Circle (it's prior incarnation) or the Liberal Club (it's prior prior incarnation). A bunch of unshaven barefoot women wearing overalls reeking of patchouli oil and serving tofu & dandelion wine in a field where you're getting bitten by mosquitos.

Meanwhile, our staff is irresistable. Heff & Hooters come to get our rejects for Bunnies & Hootergirls.

[Kagemusha]

Hmmm.

There really is no club for me.

I'm socially very liberal and I make no bones about it, but for this reason the Conservative Club pretty much bars the doors when I come knocking.

On the other hand, being a rabid capitalist and labor union hater, my views are quite conservative when it comes to how I think governments should tax/spend, so the Liberal Club is really not the place for me either.

Finally, since none of my views are really "moderate" (at least by American standards), I don't really fit in the Moderate Club either.

Moderate club isnt club for people who are average or have watered down opinions.But people who like to decide for themselves what they think an certain issues.Or what a hell if someone feels he or she is average and has watered down wiews they are wellcome too.I joined this club because i hope we can have really good conversations here,without accusing each other as lefty or rightwinger.

[JAG]

See, I don't know what the 'Moderate Club' even looks like yet. We've got pretty vivid imagery of the Conservative Club as well as the Liberal Club, or the Progressive Circle (it's prior incarnation) or the Liberal Club (it's prior prior incarnation). A bunch of unshaven barefoot women wearing overalls reeking of patchouli oil and serving tofu & dandelion wine in a field where you're getting bitten by mosquitos.

You know us too well mate!

[Kagemusha]

Does anyone else have an opinion about would it have been a better idea for US to attack Syria or Iran,instead Iraq?

[Idomeneas]

You guys and your clubs make me ill. Why do you need to coform to an agenda? Are you individuals or aren't you? Why don't you make up your own minds instead of waiting for some fatass politician to tell you what to think.

Moderates, conservatives, liberals, those are just dumb labels that mean nothing. Deomcracy is about people picking what is right in their own minds not what some ideology and party line says they would *also* believe in.

I believe that abortion should outlawed, I believe that gay people should be married, I believe that hard criminals should be executed, I believe that health care should be free for anyone who needs it. I don't give to craps about what political party that represents half those values. I only care about enforcing them.

Well im gonna agree with you. Labels and partys are only for sheeps. Men have own opinions. Many people here scream ''you are a liberal'' ''you are conservative''. I wonder do they get payed to be so fanatic? cause as i see it in the end they are all just screwed the same by goverments.
I consider myself a free democratic man who tries to be just as much as he can. Sometimes i support new ideas some times traditional values. In some aspects im left in some right. In general im just me. Those labels only harm. Just state your opinion you dont need a gang to do it. Dont give the chance to people to walk all over your views by just wrapping you with a ''witch'' like accusation.

As a friend metahead of mine sais: opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

[kiwitt]

I`d count myself as moderate simply because of regression to the mean.

Is that a request to join ?

[kiwitt]

Are you asking that non-members not post for the time being?

We accept all posts and requests for membership

[kiwitt]

... I never want to be average.

Nor me. A Moderate person is a "balanced" person not an average person. As papewaio says you do not need to use a scale. A Balanced person is better than a one-sided person in my books.

[kiwitt]

Does anyone else have an opinion about would it have been a better idea for US to attack Syria or Iran,instead Iraq?

Pre-emptive "Attacking" is not "moderate in my view. However, if either country actually attacks another with military forces, then I believe a force should step in to defend.

[Kagemusha]

Pre-emptive "Attacking" is not "moderate in my view. However, if either country actually attacks another with military forces, then I believe a force should step in to defend.

Maybe we have different view of being moderate.To me being moderate is that i can have opinions even extreme ones no matter if they are from left or right.

[A.Saturnus]

Is that a request to join ?

Depends. Yes, if you think that I qualify. I fulfill the definition you gave for politics, but hardly for religion.
No, if membership implies receiving a newsletter.

[King of Atlantis]

If Gawain qualifies, then just about anybody here qualifies

[kiwitt]

Maybe we have different view of being moderate.To me being moderate is that i can have opinions even extreme ones no matter if they are from left or right.

I still think attacking another country is "extreme" is my view. However, you can raise the "idea", and ask for feedback. I believe as a "moderate", we should have a bit more analysis to the question, before making a stand.

Syria: Have they attacked the US; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Can't say. If so, why was no action taken then.

Iran: Have they attacked the US recently; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but that was only against a few hostages, by some radical elements, whipped up by the revolution, who were later released. It is now 25 years on.

Iraq: Have they attacked the US; No. Would they have; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but they were pretty much defeated militarily. So I don't think they would have attacked the US.

[Kagemusha]

I still think attacking another country is "extreme" is my view. However, you can raise the "idea", and ask for feedback. I believe as a "moderate", we should have a bit more analysis to the question, before making a stand.

My replies are so short,because im Finnish and we are raised from childhood to use as little words as possible to make your point.I dont mean to be ruud or anything like that.

Syria:[/B] Have they attacked the US; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Can't say. If so, why was no action taken then.

Iran: Have they attacked the US recently; No. Will they; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but that was only against a few hostages, by some radical elements, whipped up by the revolution, who were later released. It is now 25 years on.

Iraq: Have they attacked the US; No. Would they have; Probably not. In the past; Yes, but they were pretty much defeated militarily. So I don't think they would have attacked the US.

I base my stand to that while Iraq may have felt to US as an easy picking.I dont understand the attack as an logigal continuation of the War on Terror.Why i supported the US attack in Afghanistan was that there was terrorist camps allower Afghanistan.And if they would have started to pressure Syria or Iran.I believe it would have gotten support from international community.Maybe attacking them wouldnt have had to happend in that scenario.My point to all this is that i see that religious terrorism in all of its forms shoud be destroyd.Because people who only preach hate should be shutted up.

[kiwitt]

According to people here the only country out of the three you mentioned here with a "legal" reason to attack was Iraq. The attack on "Iraq" is not part of the "War on Terrorism". Saddam did not support terrorists, he just breached the terms of the "ceasefire" conditions as set at in the "Hague Convention".

[Kagemusha]

According to people here the only country out of the three you mentioned here with a "legal" reason to attack was Iraq. The attack on "Iraq" is not part of the "War on Terrorism". Saddam did not support terrorists, he just breached the terms of the "ceasefire" conditions as set at in the "Hague Convention".

But the US is saying that infact it is part of War on terrorism.And that i think my friend is a false statement.So im kind of wierd im against the war in Iraq but in favor against the war on terrorism.You are right that my first statement was vague(spelling).I think if US would have tryed put pressure against Syria it would have benefitted more in war on terrorism.Either Syria would have given terrorist suspects to military tribunal to Hague,or UN would have allowed an attack against it.Same goes with Iran.You have to remember what huge internationall favour they had on war on terror prior The Attack on Iraq.

[kiwitt]

Just because the US is saying it does mean it is true and supported by facts. However, it may have caused more "terrorism". Yes, pressure could have been applied to Syria to give up their terrorists.

[Kagemusha]

Just because the US is saying it does mean it is true and supported by facts. However, it may have caused more "terrorism". Yes, pressure could have been applied to Syria to give up their terrorists.

I agree.I meant that they are not speaking truth about the war on Iraq being a part of war on terrorism.

[Kagemusha]

People at the conservative club are talking that this club is dead.Is it?Or is it just that most of our members like to talk more at the conservative club.I smell treatchery...

[kiwitt]

I think because there are more conservatives here. Alternatively, there is more to argue "against" with the conservatives. We are just so agreeable and moderate, it would be hard to find one of our viewpoints that is arguable.

Actually our "Club" is more for people to identify that they are "moderate" as we participate in a lot of other discussions, rather than discussing here.

[Lemur]

It's possible that the problem lies in the unexiting nature of moderation. A leftist crying "Death to the capitalist pigs!" will get your attention. Likewise, a right-winger screaming "Death to liberal traitors!" gets a response. Moderates can't really go around bellowing "Be reasonable! Or else!"

Well, maybe we could. I don't know how well it would work. Is there any way to make moderation sexy? Or at least offensive?

[Proletariat]

"Let the moderate's fill the streets and chant, 'Be reasonable!'" - Jon Stewart

[Kagemusha]

Im sorry if you have in USA a two party democratic system.But you know second largest party of my country is named the center party. And its now in rule with Socialdemocrats in Finland,

[Lemur]

You know second largest party of my country is named the center party.

Heh, in the U.S.A. we have two center parties. With fringe benefits, or rather beneficiaries.

It's strange here. The parties' variance in actual policy is not nearly as huge as the rhetorical divide would indicate. The reason being that both donkeys and elephants know that if they alienate the mass of moderate voters they'll be out on their ear within an election cycle. But the rhetoric and partisanship is really breathtaking.

Here's a fun factoid: Since I could never register as a Democrat or a Republican with a straight face, I'm not allowed to vote in primaries. Yes, in my state independents are barred from all primary elections. Fun, innit?

Frankly, being a moderate sucks. Listen to the fire-breathing rhetoric, the steely certitude of the extremists, and every now and then you think, "Boy, it must be fun to just grab on to a platform and let 'er rip." Wouldn't it be nice to bathe in that sea of certainties that only a fixed ideology can provide?

Oh well. Back to considering the issues one at a time. *yawn*

[kiwitt]

Oh well. Back to considering the issues one at a time. *yawn*

Slow and steady wins the race, int the long run.

[Lemur]

I've decided being moderate and open minded is sanctimonious and counter-productive.

Absolutely brilliant.

[Proletariat]

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ongue-in-cheek

[JAG]

Sarcasm? Never!

[Lemur]

Like I said, absolutely brilliant.

[Kagemusha]

Heh, in the U.S.A. we have two center parties. With fringe benefits, or rather beneficiaries.

It's strange here. The parties' variance in actual policy is not nearly as huge as the rhetorical divide would indicate. The reason being that both donkeys and elephants know that if they alienate the mass of moderate voters they'll be out on their ear within an election cycle. But the rhetoric and partisanship is really breathtaking.

Here's a fun factoid: Since I could never register as a Democrat or a Republican with a straight face, I'm not allowed to vote in primaries. Yes, in my state independents are barred from all primary elections. Fun, innit?

Frankly, being a moderate sucks. Listen to the fire-breathing rhetoric, the steely certitude of the extremists, and every now and then you think, "Boy, it must be fun to just grab on to a platform and let 'er rip." Wouldn't it be nice to bathe in that sea of certainties that only a fixed ideology can provide?

Oh well. Back to considering the issues one at a time. *yawn*

I didnt knew you had laws of registering as an party member,before you can vote in primaries.If that would be the case here the voting percents would be pretty low.