Rudy Canoza wrote:
> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>> paul wrote:
>>
>>> "Graphic Queen" <pagan@pagan.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2kl8q2p1hm4ndukdk8c6g96k5gpa8lt777@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:54:57 -0700, "paul" <riever@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Graphic Queen" <pagan@pagan.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kvc8q29u0sjfpube58k9bjbuki5ab9nnbi@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:19:27 -0700, "paul" <riever@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:jXUoh.14578$yC5.10356@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Graphic Queen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like the blog that Tom DeLay started? That was so funny how he
>>>>>>>>> took it
>>>>>>>>> down and deleted all of the comments that were against him so
>>>>>>>>> fast. It
>>>>>>>>> was great.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's funny to see you right-wingers trashing each other -
>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> matters of character.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "character" = a subject that you have no clue about. go fight
>>>>>>> with sam.
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> two deserve each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sanders is replying to me? How funny since the asswipe is in my kill
>>>>>> file.You are right though. Character is definitely something he would
>>>>>> not understand at all, not to mention the fact that I am not a right
>>>>>> winger but he calls anyone who disagrees with him that. That would be
>>>>>> because he can't and won't think for himself and only knows what to
>>>>>> post by reading or hearing what the liberal leaders tell him to say.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i can attest that you are not a right winger. i have disagreed with
>>>>> you on
>>>>> things in the past. it has always had a degree of civility and
>>>>> dignity. you
>>>>> have a good read on bucky though. he's a racist little pig who defends
>>>>> himself by accusing those who caught him with his racist rant of being
>>>>> racists themselves. in my mind that is the definition of cowardice.
>>>>>
>>>>> paul
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not a right winger but I am also not a liberal. I would call
>>>> myself a Constitutionalist. How about you? hat do you consider
>>>> yourself?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> the easy answer would be that i am a conservative. it's a little more
>>> complex than that though. i am a strong believer in the constitution
>>> and the limits on government that it provides, as well as the rights
>>> that it conveys. i am also fairly libertarian in most of my beliefs.
>>> i also believe that most of those who disagree with me are not evil,
>>> as is sometimes portrayed by a few extreme conservatives. i believe
>>> in reducing the anger component between various factions of the
>>> political spectrum.
>>
>>
>> Could you consider yourself to be Radical Middle or Radical Center?
>
>
> No such thing, your link to a bullshit site notwithstanding.
Certainly there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrist_politics
<quote in-part>
The term radical middle is a type of third way philosophy as well as an
associated political movement. Followers of this philosophy claim to
improve understanding by simultaneously affirming both sides of
apparently contradictory issues, whether that be disagreement amongst
Left-Right politics or other disagreement or dilemmas. In politics,
followers of this philosophy often call themselves the Radical Center or
Radical Centrists.
[ .. ]
Various groups have adopted "radical middle" as a term to describe a
third way philosophy which includes their belief that, in affirming the
core principles involved on both sides of a dilemma, the dilemma or
disagreement can be rendered moot. These groups argue that this reflects
an emphasis on epistemic virtue, by resolving false dilemmas -- i.e.,
finding the excluded middle. Critics argue that this can easily result
in the logical fallacy of false compromise.
The terms Radical Center and Radical Middle are often used
interchangeably, although the former more often refers to a political
movement or current and the latter to a political philosophy.
Radical middle politics
The political application of radical middle philosophy is represented by
a cluster of loosely related terms and movements: radical middle,
radical centrist, responsive communitarian, third-way, etc. As a
relatively grass-roots movement, especially in the United States, there
is no definitive statement of radical middle politics. A primary
recurring theme, however, might be the idea of "sustainably improving
choices." This is reflected in the goals of various radical middle
groups, which they describe using language such as:
* Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and
overall human potential
* Facilitate greater involvement in the political process
(e.g., through referenda)
* Being of concrete help to those in the developing world
* Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are
grounded in objective reality
* Build character by promoting conscious moral choices
* Expand community by people creating value for each other
in reciprocal relationships
* Possess a foundation of traditional values and Common sense
* Enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle
approach to environmentalism
[ .. ]
Positioning
Radical centrists are related to what is sometimes called the Vital
Center in American politics, and similarly claim to be drawing on the
best of both sides. However, they differ significantly from traditional
centrism, which prides itself on moderation and seeking political
consensus amongst the parties; radical centrists, for example, are quite
radical and populist in their stated policies. Radical centrists also
can be divisive, as opposed to the non-partisan approach of traditional
centrism. This leads to many moderates questioning whether radical
centrism deserves to be called centrist at all (perhaps analogous to how
the Left and Right often distance themselves from their respective
radical wings). For their part, radical centrists are quick to
dissociate themselves from traditional moderates, whom they often
contrast as the "sensible center", or deride as the "squishy center."
Radical centrists can be found in both left-wing and
right-wing political parties, but (like other centrists and
independents) are usually penalized for being out of step
with that party's dominant ideology. This leads to tension
between what might be called separatist factions, who
want to shed an unhelpful party label in order to run
as independents, and puritans who want to reform
(or take over) the party from within. This tension is
particularly acute in countries with strong two-party traditions,
since it is difficult for third-party candidates to win office
or create governable coalitions absent significant electoral reform.
Radical centrists see themselves as building majority consensus
for radical reforms by sidestepping (or confronting) what
they consider the obsolete, polarized and non-productive ideologies
of (social Conservatism/economic Liberalism) and (social
Liberalism/economic Conservatism). Radical centrists assert that
their principles represent the fusion of the best aspects
of Conservatism and Liberalism, and thus interpolate at the
level of philosophy rather than policy. They claim these
ideological moorings (the 'root' behind their sociological
use of the term 'radical') provide the basis for their
critique of society, government and other political movements.
[ .. ]
</quote>
See? It's not just me, Woodie.
>> http://www.radicalcenter.org/
>
>
> Yeah, they show their true rightwing colors soon enough:
>
> Most Americans are really rather conservative in
> their core values. They want to perpetuate their way
> of life. They want a strong nation with a robust
> economy. They want to have savings accounts that
> grow and pay interest. They want careers that will
> pay them decently for their hard work. They want
> good educations for their children. They want their
> Constitution honored by the government.
>
> Actually, all of those apply to virtually all Americans, but the last
> one - constitutional governance - does *not* apply to the sort of
> bigoted suburban conservative these fraudsters are trying to reach.
Really? First, kindly demonstrate that conservatives are suburban, that
suburban conservatives are bigoted, and that conservative suburban
bigots are the core audience to whom we intend our appeal.
And having demonstrated that, you'll have demonstrated that the Radical
Center doesn't at all have that as our target audience, because we
really do want our Constitution honored by the government. And according
to you, they don't.
BTW, the hardcore leftwing necessarily will find us to its right, and
the hardcore rightwing necessarily will find us to its left.
--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.
