I think it's a good thing. Fire has his reasons and I have mine. Fire doesn't
engage in childish name calling and other loser tactics that several on
these threads use when there is a disagreement or when they have totally
lost the argument. Nor do I.

I've said the following many times and enjoy every opportunity to do so.

As far as 'moderates' go, they follow the leader. Polls showing the voting habits
of moderates demonstrate that they do just that. Since they are incapable of
making a real decision they must depend upon whomever shows himself to
be the leader to get their vote.

Case in point: BO came across as a leader. He didn't do anything to attract
moderates. If anything he ignored them. The moderates loved him and voted for
him. JM, on the other hand, did everything possible to attract moderates,
except show himself to be a leader. JM is a true moderate. Gag, vom...
etc...

Any voter who honestly and truly looks at all of the information and comes
to a real decision isn't a moderate. moderates have no clue what they want,
except to be lead. moderates should be ignored, just like BO did.
Conservatives can learn a great deal about winning an election from BO.
Just don't let them know you are ignoring them. They didn't know BO
ignored them. Why? Because he didn't tell them.

Conservatives and Liberals (egad I capitalized liberal) do exactly what the
moderates claim to do. They look at both sides of an issue and (hopefully)
come to a reasonable decision. DUH! moderates are not neutral. They are the
true sheep of the electoral process.

Closing comments.

I've decided to use the diminutive font and size when using moderate instead
of the far more descriptive terms of barf, vomit, gut wrenching puke when
the word is used. However, I honestly mean barf, vomit, gut wrenching
puke when the diminutive (moderate) is used and I hope everyone who reads
this won't be able to think of anything except barf, vomit, gut wrenching
puke when the term moderate is used.

Nothing else describes a moderate better than barf, vomit, gut wrenching puke.

I have almost as little respect for moderates as I do for algore.

I have always viewed moderates as the fence sitters in both parties. They jump and join whichever team is winning or appears to be winning.

I believe the Republicans lost the last election because they left the party beliefs behind and picked the guy everybody liked vs the guy that could win the election. John McCain is war hero and a half way descent Senator but, he is not a leader. To be honest he would not have done things to much diffrently than Obama has done.

He would have kissed the butt of the Democratic Party and signed off on everything they wanted. He would have done as means to please the moderate base that desires to unite democrats and republicans.

Democrats and Republicans need to natural enemies. Being natural enemies helps each side see the good and the bad of every issue. The last thing we need is to only see a little grey area on every issue.

Not to mention Democrats embracing Republican ideals and vice versa is about as likely as OU Footbal fans falling in love with UT Football.

That's a very astute observation.

To boil it down to the essentials, moderates follow the leader.

You nailed on the head, but, I have some differences in opinion.
I don't think JM would have acted as stupid as BO. JM would have never
gone on a BO Apology Tour. That's a given. The USA has nothing to
apologize for. I don't believe JM would have taken control of BO motors.

Although JM would not be as bad as BO, I believe he would have made
some egregios mistakes, i.e. listened to democrats in order to...

(I have to go to the bathroom)

appear moderate

Calling the democrats anything but democrat is ludicrous. They're no more
democratic than Libertarians, Independents, Republicans or any political
party you care to list.

I believe JM would have gone along with almost everything the democrats
wanted. However, in order to be perceived as moderate he would have made some good
decisions.

You lost me

I think I understand the part that you lost me on. I don't think democrats
and Republicans (let's include Libertarians, Independents - whatever that
means - and other parties in the picture) are natural enemies. Many
democrats make reasonable decisions. I believe the natural enemy part
stems from being Conservative (rational) and leftist (government controlled
everything).

While there is some truth to that statement, democrats have shown
themselves to be sensible on several topics. Not the democrat leadership,
mind you, but the voting democrats.

Prune, you claim you don't stoop to calling people names. I need you to help me understand some things then. If I were to say all conservatives are dumbasses, I have NOT called you a name and therefore maintain the higher moral ground, as apposed to saying, You conservative dumbass. You consistently insult people on here and yet you claim to never call people names. I have said it before, but I get embarrassed sometimes to agree with you for fear that people will think that I am as duplicitous as you are. Quit claiming to be a sweet innocent when you are acting like a vile aggitator.

Once again I refer you to Corporation for Public Broadcasting website that say, "CPB, a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967, is the steward of the federal government's investment in public broadcasting."

What part of that quote is hard to understand?

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

That's well and good, but you need to understand the words. The government did make an investment in public broadcasting, a long time ago. Like many investments, they don't control the outcome. NPR is not government controlled. I have showed you where the money comes from, who the directors are, not a single government 'string' to be found.

To say that they're on par with the Voice of America stations is just ignorant.

No, we just don't lay in bed with a particular political party, like Democrats or Republicans. For me this lies in the parts of both parties that I find utterly disgusting...the Repubs can't get away from religious wakkos and a "bomb 'em first" mentality, and the Dems seem to want to tax the hell out of everyone and control every aspect of our private lives as possible. That leaves me no choice but to be an independent moderate....

Wow, Childish name calling and looser tactics? You mean like making fun of peoples names? Using smaller fonts for things you don't like? Calling people stupid? Have you any idea how silly your posts look when you deride something in your first statement, and then proceed to use the exact tactics you /just/ derided in the rest of your post?

LOL so true. Example from PP's above post

As opposed to what? Adhereing to the party line regardless of "right and wrong"? LOL LOL LOL Who are the "sheeple" and who are the independent thinkers?

Fire 121: Moderates, or "The Thinkers", like to look at both sides, then come to their decisions on all the issues.

Prunepicker: Moderates, they follow the leader. They are incapable of making a real decision.

You guys need to put your heads together and decide who's right and who's wrong here.

Moderates are the homeless of the political neighborhood.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

I don't call members on these threads names nor do I personally attack
them. You can search the entire OKC Talk site.

I would never, nor have I ever, use the terms you used toward any
member of these threads.

People are often insulted because of what I think about the actions of a
particular person, like BO, a group or topic of a discussion. Sometimes
they're insulted by my use of hyperbole. It's a shame when they can't
tell when it's being used.

I don't call members of these threads names. It's pointless.

I'm not duplicitous.

As far as you having fear for agreeing with me, that's not my problem. It's
something you have to work out.

I've never claimed to be sweet and innocent, or sweet innocent as you
said, nor am I a vile agitator. Those are false statements.

Andy, Andy, Andy. I'm always right.

I heard voters call themselves moderates because they said that they
looked at both sides of the issues and made a reasonable decision. When I
heard that I said to myself, "that's exactly what I do." I started calling
myself a moderate, using the above definition, for years. When I joined
these threads and claimed my moderacy (new word lol), many on these
threads couldn't stand it. It was quite hilarious.

Upon researching the voting habits of moderates, I found that issues didn't
matter as much as whomever appeared to be the leader. If found it quite
sickening.

more like abandoned

I find this thread amusing and without basis in reality. I have found that in business, the moderates, e.g. the pragmatists, are generally in charge of everything. They lead, they manage, they see the big picture and set direction. The conservative extremists and the liberal extremists can't get anything done. They spin and spin with ideas and can never produce anything, except perhaps fights with one another which do nothing but waste time. In the end the pragmatists are able to seek compromises and get everyone on board and set direction, and then the extremists are herded along and follow direction. It is no surprise to me that right and left leaning extremists would not see this clear reality, and would think that the best way to get things done is through total and absolute domination to a level of which is extremely unlikely to occur.

Extremists of both left and right look at both sides alright, but they do so having already made up their minds. Their focus lies not in weighing issues but in gathering ammunition for the next diatribe. Bill Buckley, my favorite conservative commentator, used to refer to "Kneejerk Liberals." It seems to me the name "Kneejerk Conservatives" can be applied to the guys, and girls, at Fox News. Centrists are the ONLY people in today's political world who actually think. Bill Buckley, who actually did think, is long gone.

No, moderates are simply people that don't take extreme conservative or extreme liberal positions on the issues. I can see if you're an extremist that it may be hard to accept that view of moderates.

Those were valuable words of wisdom. Thank you.

I was also a big fan of Buckley and miss his intellectual arguments. It was also great to see how quickly that guy thought... he could really snap back at someone when backed in a corner.

Favorite William F. Buckley quote:

"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe what you just said."

That is not necessarily true. To me, a moderate is someone who takes each issue, thinks critically about the issue, and comes to a conclusion based critical thought; and finally, those conclusions do not necessarily align with party doctrine, but may on occasion. Hence the term moderate.

I've never known a true moderate to be a front runner as you say. I think you might confuse the "undecideds" with moderates. Undecideds to me don't appear to be people who think critically about things, and wait until the last minute to make up their minds (i.e. I dunno whether to vote for McCain or Obama and its November 3rd!). Hardly a moderate, in my definition. More like an empty head. If that person thought about the issues, they'd probably have made a decision (or even a decision not to vote).

And I consider myself a moderate, because there are issues that I align myself with Republicans and those issues that I align myself with Democrats. Sure it tends to be one of those more often than not, but it really does depend on the issue. I disagree with party line on selected issues. It happens. Plus makes talk board chat more interesting. Some folks, I always know what their position on things are without even reading the post...