Originally Posted by
dawg80
Is that your definition of a moderate, someone who has opposite (in terms of libtard vs. conservative) views of fiscal vs. social policies?
How about someone who has so-called "middle of the road" views within one of the areas? Such as, supports too much government in some arenas of economic policy, but opposes gov-mint over-reach in other instants of economic policy? Example, said person might be a strong advocate of too much gov-mint giveaways in "safety net" policy, but at the same time be a staunch supporter of individual property rights. Analyzing that person's overall views, would cast him/her into the "moderate" category, by definition.
But, more to your question, about "reasonable" people disagreeing. Unfortunately, civil discourse was cast aside by the increasingly desperate "progressives" (socialists) when the American populace continually rejected their warped view of the world. So, slowly, taking decades, those wormy socialists hijacked the media and the education system and began indoctrinating the masses, looking for that tipping point whereby more Americans would be dependent on THEM, than rejected THEM. When the former "main stream" media (the old networks) stopped reporting the news and started creating it, a natural response was the formation of a counter system of mass media: talk radio, Rush, Hannity, etc... Now, the two sides have become so polarized that offering to "meet in the middle" is seen as a sign of weakness from the other side.
What we need is a good world war to bring this nation together again.
And please note, I mean a "good" WW, one where the USA is righteous and fights on the right side.
Oh...back to the main point. The libtards started it. So, if you're upset about the lack of civil discourse, it's their fault.