Okay, so we have two major approaches here:
One, stevo's: listened/read until he found a place that he mostly agrees with strongly, and now is strongly firm in those beliefs and arguing those to the best of his ability, but has not completely barred the possibility of seeing something new (though he sounds difficult to persuade otherwise) - i.e. find a comfortable spot and camp in it;
and two, charlatan and ubertuber's, reviewing many sources for information that is useful, trying to keep perspective balanced so as to learn new things, feeling firm in their beliefs, but possibly easier to convince of new ideas - some might call it fence-sitting based on different definitions of moderate etc.
I also find it interesting that this is the first time I'm reading a
reason why someone dislikes a media event. Thanks, Stevo!
Also, Stevo: I don't think I agree that it's impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. As I've heard Bill O'Rights say (paraphrasing
heavily): People should have the right to do what they want, but I may not want to pay for it.
To me, socially liberal means that I believe strongly in the right to privacy. Am I gay? Am I having an abortion? No. But it's not my business if someone else is, as long as it's not socially irresponsible. (i.e. keep medical procedures safe, etc.).
I'm a Practical Idealist - I want to take care of our people, but not indebt ourselves carrying the lazy. Can that be a new term? Practical Idealist?
