Progressives: The Anti-Liberals

[GenSeneca]

Then we have made it quite clear that the premise of this thread is not defendable.

Its indefensible because its truth.

apparently those criteria were merely a moving target and only Right Wing definitions of meeting those criteria count.

They are static. Those principles are the only thing that are static. Progressives seek to change definitions and manipulate meaning to fit their agenda. You don't hear Conservatives saying the Constitution is a "Living breathing document", a statement that has consistently been used to explain why we don't have to change the constitution but rather our interpretation of the constitution in order to move in a different direction.

The words PROVIDE and PROMOTE have very specific meanings. Its the Progressives who have undermined the meanings of those words in order to make them meaninglessly interchangable. The General Welfare clause calls on the Federal government to Provide for the common defense but clearly states that the general welfare of the citizens should simply be promoted by the federal government.

I would say it is quite clear that the NRA is a Right Wing group.

Are you saying the Left Wing does not support one of our constitutional rights? How shocking... ok not really. Progressives on both sides pick and choose which rights they feel we may excersize, they want to choose our freedoms and limit our actions to those that they approve.

Lastly, you think I'm bashing leftists when I meniton progressives. You are simply ignorant of history if you think that is the case. Look up Teddy Roosevelt, Republican president, Leader of the Progressive party. Progressives are on both sides and they must be exposed as being on both sides and they must be defeated on both sides.

The reason both parties look more and more like each other... they have both become progressive. The reason both parties are in favor of some rights here and others there... they are both progressive.

Progressivism is the cancer, Founding Principles are the answer.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I agree the media did not cover it so the people were not upset but why are these people acting like blind sheep and only getting upset at what the media tells them to be upset at?

Most people pay little attention to government. Political geeks like all the people who frequent this forum, are a small minority.

The majority, in fact, has the right attitude. Government is put in place to take care of things that private individuals or groups cannot handle (national defense, foreign relations, criminal prosecution etc.)... and once it's in place, people tend to let it take care of its business while they take care of theirs.

Some people might say that that's NOT the best attitude, since unattended governments can and do grab more and more power until they start oppressing the people they were supposed to serve. But this harkens back to a saying from (I believe) John Adams, where he said that governments like ours are suitable only for just and moral people. If we put people into government whose agenda is to keep it limited to the bounds mandated by the Constitution, then we DON'T need to pay much attention to it. But we haven't done that in twenty years, and haven't done it much in eighty.

Do we even have a chance when the majority of Americans wait for Katie Couric to tell them its time to be angry?

Sure... as long as we let the free market function, and perky Katies loses so much ratings that he boss takes her off the air and replaces her with someone who wants to hold government accountable, no matter who is in the Congress or White House. And for good measure also replaces the editors who decide what stories will be covered, with editors with that same agenda.

BTW, when govt starts subsidizing or baling out news organizations, that signals the end of letting the free market function.

 

[PLC1]

I agree the media did not cover it so the people were not upset but why are these people acting like blind sheep and only getting upset at what the media tells them to be upset at? Do we even have a chance when the majority of Americans wait for Katie Couric to tell them its time to be angry?

Nope.

Not many seem to take the time to read or watch programs with different political philosophies, and, even if they did, there isn't much being said about the more outrageous attacks on liberty.

There is a lot being said on some stations about about how awful the stealfromus package is, and how we're building up an unsustainable debt. Others are telling the listeners/watchers/readers how it will bring us back to prosperity. Not much was being said about deficit spending until after the election, though.

We are beginning to hear a little bit once in a while about how the failed "war on drugs" is promoting violence and funding gangs, but not very much. No one from the mainstream seems willing to have a serious debate about what to do about that little problem.

Once in a great while there is something buried on page 8 about how the unconstitutional "asset forfeiture" law is being abused by one authority or other, but not much is said about that.

We hear about the "fairness doctrine" from those most likely to be affected, but the average person couldn't tell you what it is all about, any more than the phrase "asset forfeiture" would mean anything, nor would the so called "free choice act". The man on the street might have actually heard about the "patriot act," but his opinion will have been formed by whichever media he has been exposed to.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Fewer and fewer are willing to pay the price.

 

[samsara15]

Its indefensible because its truth.


They are static. Those principles are the only thing that are static. Progressives seek to change definitions and manipulate meaning to fit their agenda. You don't hear Conservatives saying the Constitution is a "Living breathing document", a statement that has consistently been used to explain why we don't have to change the constitution but rather our interpretation of the constitution in order to move in a different direction.

The words PROVIDE and PROMOTE have very specific meanings. Its the Progressives who have undermined the meanings of those words in order to make them meaninglessly interchangable. The General Welfare clause calls on the Federal government to Provide for the common defense but clearly states that the general welfare of the citizens should simply be promoted by the federal government.


Are you saying the Left Wing does not support one of our constitutional rights? How shocking... ok not really. Progressives on both sides pick and choose which rights they feel we may excersize, they want to choose our freedoms and limit our actions to those that they approve.

Lastly, you think I'm bashing leftists when I meniton progressives. You are simply ignorant of history if you think that is the case. Look up Teddy Roosevelt, Republican president, Leader of the Progressive party. Progressives are on both sides and they must be exposed as being on both sides and they must be defeated on both sides.

The reason both parties look more and more like each other... they have both become progressive. The reason both parties are in favor of some rights here and others there... they are both progressive.

Progressivism is the cancer, Founding Principles are the answer.

If you wish to redefine the English language, feel free to do so. That has been done many times. I named an organization that met your criteria of Classical Liberalism, and you rejected it. We have nothing to discuss because we cannot even agree on the basics of what is and what is not. There is no common ground between the way you see the world and the way I see it.

Yes, I am aware that Teddy Roosevelt was a founder of Progressivism. The rejection of Roosevelt Republicanism clearly shows how extreme and how far to the Right today's so-called Conservatives have gone. .

 

[samsara15]

Nope.

Not many seem to take the time to read or watch programs with different political philosophies, and, even if they did, there isn't much being said about the more outrageous attacks on liberty.

There is a lot being said on some stations about about how awful the stealfromus package is, and how we're building up an unsustainable debt. Others are telling the listeners/watchers/readers how it will bring us back to prosperity. Not much was being said about deficit spending until after the election, though.

We are beginning to hear a little bit once in a while about how the failed "war on drugs" is promoting violence and funding gangs, but not very much. No one from the mainstream seems willing to have a serious debate about what to do about that little problem.

Once in a great while there is something buried on page 8 about how the unconstitutional "asset forfeiture" law is being abused by one authority or other, but not much is said about that.

We hear about the "fairness doctrine" from those most likely to be affected, but the average person couldn't tell you what it is all about, any more than the phrase "asset forfeiture" would mean anything, nor would the so called "free choice act". The man on the street might have actually heard about the "patriot act," but his opinion will have been formed by whichever media he has been exposed to.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Fewer and fewer are willing to pay the price.

The failed and immoral War on Drugs has quite often been used to seize people's assets, mainly their homes, on merely the flimsiest of suspicions. Where is the Conservative outrage against this?

 

[PLC1]

The failed and immoral War on Drugs has quite often been used to seize people's assets, mainly their homes, on merely the flimsiest of suspicions. Where is the Conservative outrage against this?

Where indeed? Where is anyone's outrage against this? How many are even aware of it?

Oh, sure, if the police think someone is a drug dealer, then it must be so, and if they take thier house/car/whatever and sell it, it must be OK. It won't affect me, since I don't have anything to hide. Patriot Act? Well, I don't have anything to hide, so I'm OK there too. Habeus Corpus? What's that? So, the attorney general doesn't think it's important, so it must not be. I feel secure in the arms of the big, powerful, government who will protect and keep me.

All too many seem to be perfectly willing to believe all of the above, along with thinking that this is the USA, so "they" can't take our freedom away. It's time we started keeping a better eye on "they" before they take even more of our liberties away in the name of security.

 

[Pandora]

Where indeed? Where is anyone's outrage against this? How many are even aware of it?

Oh, sure, if the police think someone is a drug dealer, then it must be so, and if they take thier house/car/whatever and sell it, it must be OK. It won't affect me, since I don't have anything to hide. Patriot Act? Well, I don't have anything to hide, so I'm OK there too. Habeus Corpus? What's that? So, the attorney general doesn't think it's important, so it must not be. I feel secure in the arms of the big, powerful, government who will protect and keep me.

All too many seem to be perfectly willing to believe all of the above, along with thinking that this is the USA, so "they" can't take our freedom away. It's time we started keeping a better eye on "they" before they take even more of our liberties away in the name of security.

Patriot act? Habeus Corpus? in the war on drugs?

huh?

Oregon is the only state I can speak for but long long long before Bush or 911 if someone was making, selling drugs and caught and they could not prove the house they own or the car they own was gotten with legal gains the stuff was taken. If a person had a full time job and sold drugs on the side the state could not take their house or car, only if they could provide no proof of legal income.

For longer than that a person could and often would have thier car taken for DUII or being busted for drugs in the car, not selling not making just having.

If its that way for Oregon and has been before Bush and before 911 and before the patriot act I am sure its the same in other states.

 

[PLC1]

Patriot act? Habeus Corpus? in the war on drugs?

huh?

Oregon is the only state I can speak for but long long long before Bush or 911 if someone was making, selling drugs and caught and they could not prove the house they own or the car they own was gotten with legal gains the stuff was taken. If a person had a full time job and sold drugs on the side the state could not take their house or car, only if they could provide no proof of legal income.

For longer than that a person could and often would have thier car taken for DUII or being busted for drugs in the car, not selling not making just having.

If its that way for Oregon and has been before Bush and before 911 and before the patriot act I am sure its the same in other states.

Yes, of course the unconstitutional asset forfeiture law precedes Bush. I'm not sure just how far back it goes, but it has been around for far too long.

Can you really not see anything wrong with this:

they could not prove the house they own or the car they own was gotten with legal gains the stuff was taken.

from an innocent until proven guilty point of view? How about not being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process?

And those cars taken from drunk drivers can be had back by paying the towing and storage fees. They aren't taken and sold, nor are they taken unless the driver fails a breath test.

Vehicles that are suspected of being used in the drug trade can be taken and sold, and often are. There doesn't have to be any basis for the suspicion.

Yet, no one seems to worry about this trashing of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Andy]

The failed and immoral War on Drugs has quite often been used to seize people's assets, mainly their homes, on merely the flimsiest of suspicions. Where is the Conservative outrage against this?

Oh please. I've posted on how wrong that is many times. Good grief, I posted on how that was wrong before I ever started coming to this forum. The idea that an old lady should lose her home she's lived in for 20 years, because her scum bag teenage grandson was a druggie, it totally wrong.

 

[Andy]

from an innocent until proven guilty point of view? How about not being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process?

And those cars taken from drunk drivers can be had back by paying the towing and storage fees. They aren't taken and sold, nor are they taken unless the driver fails a breath test.

Vehicles that are suspected of being used in the drug trade can be taken and sold, and often are. There doesn't have to be any basis for the suspicion.

Yet, no one seems to worry about this trashing of the Bill of Rights.

So if I'm caught with drugs, before being convicted of drug possession, I'll lose everything? I've haven't heard any stories like this. Are you sure your sources are true?

 

[GenSeneca]

If you wish to redefine the English language, feel free to do so.

Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarians have no interest in redefining words. We did not redefined the words "Provide" and "Promote" in order to create the welfare state, Progressives did that. We are not the ones who seek to redefine "marriage" for a political agenda, progressives seek to do that. Progressives see redefining words as a shortcut to getting what they want.... because its worked for them in the past.

I named an organization that met your criteria of Classical Liberalism, and you rejected it.

Rejected because the ACLU does not meet the criteria. As myself and others have pointed out, the ACLU is selective in who's rights they protect and which of the criteria they choose to support. The ACLU violates many, if not most, of the criteria you claim they support.

We have nothing to discuss because we cannot even agree on the basics of what is and what is not.

I accept your admission of defeat.

There is no common ground between the way you see the world and the way I see it.

You haven't even tried, you made assertions... I challenged you on them... you gave up. No shame in that.

Yes, I am aware that Teddy Roosevelt was a founder of Progressivism.

Then you are misinformed, Roosevelt didn't found Progressivism. I invite you to take the time to educate yourself on Teddy Roosevelt.

The rejection of Roosevelt Republicanism clearly shows how extreme and how far to the Right today's so-called Conservatives have gone.

Roosevelt was not a Conservative, he was, as already stated, a Progressive. He broke the Republican party away from an adherence to the Constitution, away from the founding principles of our country, and the Republican Party has been marching hand in hand with the Democrat Party towards Statism ever since.

Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians only seem extreme to progressives because of just how far away from our founding principles and constitution this nation has strayed under the banner of progressives. That's why Leftist Progressives like "moderate" Republicans... the moderates are nothing more than progressives with elephant costumes.

If you think Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarians are radical...

You must really think our founders and framers were extremist nutjobs for the things they believed.

Progressives don't think highly of these men in powdered wigs.​

 

[GenSeneca]

Perhaps we could do a great service to America by not calling progressives liberals? We should call the progressives progressive and make that a dirty word and call the classical liberals liberal and make that acceptible.

I have written about this for quite some time.... I hope people do catch on and begin separating the two of them as you've stated. Liberals are not my enemy any more than Libertarians or Conservatives are my enemy. Progressives are my enemy because they are an enemy to my freedom, enemy to our constitution, and enemy to Capitalism.

Progressives like to say they support those things but they give the caveat that there must be some "common sense" restrictions and exceptions. Their version of "common sense" is our slavery to the state with themselves as the exceptions.

Shackles on personal freedom so that you are a ward of the welfare state, either you're chained in the cart as a passenger or your chained out front pulling it along while the Progressives sit in the driver seat holding the reigns in one hand and a whip in the other.

Shackles on the constitution through the redefinition of words and reinterpretation in the courts so they may steer it in any direction they want and avoid the process laid out in the constitution for changing the document.

Shackles on Capitalism and Free Markets with oppressive regulations, restrictions, taxes and generous subsidies that suffocate innovation, reward failure and sloth while punishing achievement.

Governments only constitutional role is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to tell them how to live (green) or think (PC), and taxes were meant to cover the cost of that protection... taxes were never meant to be used as a weapon for politicians to make things "fair", or to bribe constituents, or to reward corporate campaign contributors.

Progressive on both the Left and Right violate governments constitutional limitations... if we Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives don't unite, if we continue to allow this abuse of power to go unchecked, if we don't name the evil and come to terms with it, the Progressives will march us into slavery.

 

[samsara15]

Rejected because the ACLU does not meet the criteria. As myself and others have pointed out, the ACLU is selective in who's rights they protect and which of the criteria they choose to support. The ACLU violates many, if not most, of the criteria you claim they support.


I accept your admission of defeat.


You haven't even tried, you made assertions... I challenged you on them... you gave up. No shame in that.

We have nothing to say to each other, Mr Seneca, your quiver is empty. All you have is assertions of your own.

The ACLU at least makes an effort, if a biased effort. You have not named one group that does any better than another biased effort.

You do a lot of self-righteous preaching, but we have not found any view of reality that you and I share that we can agree upon to use as a basis for discussion. Apparently you and I live on different planets.

 

[Pandora]

We have nothing to say to each other, Mr Seneca, your quiver is empty. All you have is assertions of your own.

The ACLU at least makes an effort, if a biased effort. You have not named one group that does any better than another biased effort.

You do a lot of self-righteous preaching, but we have not found any view of reality that you and I share that we can agree upon to use as a basis for discussion. Apparently you and I live on different planets.

The original question you asked is who of us gave to the ACLU; we explained why we do not, because they are bias.

You seem to accept the fact that they are bias, so hopefully you can also accept that is the reason why many of us do not support them or their efforts.

 

[Pandora]

I certainly disagree with that. You simply don't value the freedoms they defend, yet try to call yourself a defender of freedom, which you clearly are not.

There are Right Wing advocacy groups, similar to the ACLU. Do you donate to them?

There have been Christians who were fired for wearing their cross, fired for not being politically correct, Kicked out of school for praying. There have been so many people who have had their rights violated and the ACLU did NOTHING, N O T H I N G ! ! !

But you got a Muslim who’s work wont pay for them to pray or let them take their drivers license photo with their head scarf on, Or some pervert who wants to jack off to kiddie porn at the library or some NAMBLA guy is feeling disenfranchised because no one is making it easy for him to do little boys in the butt and the ACLU will be right there quick as lighting to defend your "freedom"

You can disagree all you want it won’t make you level headed and yes I do value freedom. I value the freedom of kids to be safe from NAMBLA I value the freedom of Christians to wear their cross or pray if they want to, I value freedom very much, and I don’t race to defend perverts but there is no need for that as long as there are people like you in the world to defend NAMBLA and pervs who want to watch kiddie porn on library computers. Isn't it great to know you make that all possible!

As for donating, there is always a good attorney who takes these cases that the ACLU sticks their stubby little noses up at, and we know who the attorneys are when they take the cases, there are always ways to donate to the cause you feel is important.