Do you hate both sides on most issues?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not at all. I know this is a common Moderate Hero talking point, but on most issues one side is completely correct and reasonable and another side is insufferable and ridiculous. Think about this, Moderate Heroes think that the idea that every person deserves some sort of basic safety net or even the rather moderate legislation of Obamacare is about equal to the Tea Party in how extreme and annoying they are then it's quite telling (and no, the opposite of the Tea Party would not be something like Marxist collectivism, because no one in the US is suggesting that besides teenagers on the internet who think their Lenin and Mao shirts make them badasses.)

One rare issue where this is the case is gun control, where both sides are utterly insufferable (Often ignorant "BAN THE GUNS!" hysteria vs. just as ignorant and idiotic "DEFEND MAH FREEDOMS!" hysteria.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nah, not most issues. Here are a few where I really do hate both sides, though:
- Trade
- Drugs
- Foreign policy
- Sexual freedom
- Moderators on this forum

I may be forgetting some.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are almost always more than two sides.

[minionofmidas]

There are almost always more than two sides that I hate on any issue.

[ElectionsGuy]

No, not most issues, but many issues, yes. I often disagree with both sides on foreign policy and the role of government, as well as the individual issues of Abortion and Immigration (my only real moderate tendencies). 

[TNF]

If "both sides" refers to Democrats and Republicans, then absolutely yes. If "both sides" refers to liberalism and conservatism, then absolutely yes. However, if "both sides" refers to socialism and conservatism or left and right, then emphatically no.

[bedstuy]

I don't buy the premise.

There are more than two sides to almost every issue.  And within any side there are opinions and perspectives that I respect, and those that I do not respect.  What I tend to hate about opinions, right or left is the following:

-Doesn't acknowledge empirical facts
-Doesn't know the nuances and details of the issue
-Doesn't acknowledge the weak-points in their argument or state their assumptions
-Can't back up their beliefs with a logical argument
-Generally making radical or extreme statements
-Ignorant of history and intellectual basis for their position

[Cassius]

I think hate is far too strong a word. I'm not trying to be 'sage' or iconoclastic, for this is just what I feel, but I personally don't go in totally for any ideology in particular. Instead I pick up bits and bos from here and there to fit my own interests, values and philosophical leanings. So in a sense I could say that I disagree with all sides, but some sides (socialist, liberal and secular ones) far more than others (conservative and religious).

[Vosem]

I don't buy the premise.

There are more than two sides to almost every issue.  And within any side there are opinions and perspectives that I respect, and those that I do not respect.  What I tend to hate about opinions, right or left is the following:

-Doesn't acknowledge empirical facts
-Doesn't know the nuances and details of the issue
-Doesn't acknowledge the weak-points in their argument or state their assumptions
-Can't back up their beliefs with a logical argument
-Generally making radical or extreme statements
-Ignorant of history and intellectual basis for their position

While bedstuy and I don't agree on many issues, I think he's captured the gist of my opinion on this one quite well -- except perhaps for his fifth point

[bedstuy]

I don't buy the premise.

There are more than two sides to almost every issue.  And within any side there are opinions and perspectives that I respect, and those that I do not respect.  What I tend to hate about opinions, right or left is the following:

-Doesn't acknowledge empirical facts
-Doesn't know the nuances and details of the issue
-Doesn't acknowledge the weak-points in their argument or state their assumptions
-Can't back up their beliefs with a logical argument
-Generally making radical or extreme statements
-Ignorant of history and intellectual basis for their position

While bedstuy and I don't agree on many issues, I think he's captured the gist of my opinion on this one quite well -- except perhaps for his fifth point

I think I should explain what I mean.  I'm fine with someone having a radical or extreme point of view.  I just think that radical or audacious statements require extraordinary arguments or at least sensitivity to the fact that you're saying something audacious.

[Vosem]

I don't buy the premise.

There are more than two sides to almost every issue.  And within any side there are opinions and perspectives that I respect, and those that I do not respect.  What I tend to hate about opinions, right or left is the following:

-Doesn't acknowledge empirical facts
-Doesn't know the nuances and details of the issue
-Doesn't acknowledge the weak-points in their argument or state their assumptions
-Can't back up their beliefs with a logical argument
-Generally making radical or extreme statements
-Ignorant of history and intellectual basis for their position

While bedstuy and I don't agree on many issues, I think he's captured the gist of my opinion on this one quite well -- except perhaps for his fifth point

I think I should explain what I mean.  I'm fine with someone having a radical or extreme point of view.  I just think that radical or audacious statements require extraordinary arguments or at least sensitivity to the fact that you're saying something audacious.

Ah, that's perfectly reasonable

[H. Ross Peron]

I don't buy the premise.

There are more than two sides to almost every issue.  And within any side there are opinions and perspectives that I respect, and those that I do not respect.  What I tend to hate about opinions, right or left is the following:

-Doesn't acknowledge empirical facts
-Doesn't know the nuances and details of the issue
-Doesn't acknowledge the weak-points in their argument or state their assumptions
-Can't back up their beliefs with a logical argument
-Generally making radical or extreme statements
-Ignorant of history and intellectual basis for their position

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If "both sides" refers to Democrats and Republicans, then absolutely yes. If "both sides" refers to liberalism and conservatism, then absolutely yes. However, if "both sides" refers to socialism and conservatism or left and right, then emphatically no.

As usual, TNF is correct.

[PJ]

Yes when referring to democrats and republicans, and I'm annoyed by anyone who thinks these are the only sides to an argument. No when referring to liberalism/conservatism, leftist/right wing etc, but thinking these are the only two sides to an argument is annoying as well.

[Ban my account ffs!]

There are almost always more than two sides that I hate on any issue.

There is almost always one German I hate on any one issue. 

[minionofmidas]

There are almost always more than two sides that I hate on any issue.

There is almost always one German I hate on any one issue. 

There should be more than one, and indeed more than two.

[freefair]

I don't buy the premise.

There are more than two sides to almost every issue.  And within any side there are opinions and perspectives that I respect, and those that I do not respect.  What I tend to hate about opinions, right or left is the following:

-Doesn't acknowledge empirical facts
-Doesn't know the nuances and details of the issue
-Doesn't acknowledge the weak-points in their argument or state their assumptions
-Can't back up their beliefs with a logical argument
-Generally making radical or extreme statements
-Ignorant of history and intellectual basis for their position

[Peter the Lefty]

With TNF on this one.  I hate both the Republican position on health care and Obamacare.  I hate the "cut social security by this eye-watering amount" vs. "completely gut it until it's dead."  There are others, but I'll also say that I find both sides of the gun control issue hilarious.  Be real.  The second amendment is bullsh*t.

[dead0man]

No. A couple, sure, but not most.  Abortion and immigration are the big ones.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Trade would be another primarily because for one thing, the type of free trade of the bilateral variety that we had been pursuing lately is hardly real free trade at all certainly in comparison to the multilateral free trade pursued in the aftermath of World War II. I tend to take a more realistic approach to things as opposed to some idealistic one. It is thus that while I think free trade is preferrable, if pursued in isolation from the effects on the ground, such could lead to a counter reaction in the political world that pushes protectionism, which is obviously not the desired outcome.

[PJ]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

While that may be a prevalent opinion on this forum, I would hardly say that the Democratic party wants to remove all immigration restrictions.

[Supersonic]

Not really, 90% of the time I back 'my own side'.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I try to see both sides of an argument rather than hate both sides.

[Redalgo]

No, though a lot of common stances are annoying. I'm usually on my own "side" though instead of having ideas that neatly line of with those of any faction.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

While that may be a prevalent opinion on this forum, I would hardly say that the Democratic party wants to remove all immigration restrictions.

Ostenibly yes, but the long term effect of cyclically granting amnesty is to undermine those restrictions in place to the point where they might as well not even exist. Frankly, what is the difference? At least the openly open borders crowd is honest about it.