Progressives: The Anti-Liberals

[Dr.Who]

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.
.

let's see...what group would do the same thing as the ACLU but do it as a conservative? That would be every single person who brings a case to the supreme court to on the basis of a constitutional argument.

Conservatives don't need a special group to defend the constitution because we are not a special interest group that stands against it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Then, I presume, you would agree that there are more than one equally vaild versions of what is means to honor the tenets of Classical Liberalism and Conservatism?

Absolutely not... What you ascribe to is Welfare Liberalism, AKA Progressivism. Classic Conservatism is not the same as thing as Neo-Conservatism, Neo-Conservatives are Progressives.

Equating an apple with an orange, because they are both sweet fruit, is nothing more than intellectual laziness.

 

[BigRob]

Do you agree with kicking a kid out of school if they pray for their teacher?
or denying a kid who was asked to speak at graduation to be able to say they felt it was God who got them through the tough times to get them to where they are today?

The law is ridiculous in my opinion, in one breath you can’t say god at school or pray but the congress cant open session without a prayer.

I think the original intent on this issue is important but its ok if we disagree. That’s what makes our Country so great

I do not think that the kid should be kicked out for that or the speaker should not be allowed to speak for that. I think the only problem is when someone makes an attempt to legislate religion on someone else or establish a state religion.

 

[PLC1]

The ACLU went to court against Judge Roy Moore to have the Ten Commandments monument removed from the property. I think it was 2003.

Yes, I think you're right. Why, I'm not sure. The argument had something to do with the Ten Commandments being a Christian icon, which it's not, and about it being the basis of our law, which it's not. I don't remember a lot about this rather strange case.

Actually there is a current story of a student who prayed for a sick teacher and another teacher who had “issues” with prayer had the girl kicked out of school with the help of the ACLU. The girl has been reinstated NOT DUE TO THE ACLU

Also,

There are far too many examples of the ACLU fighing AGAINST people being able to pray on school grounds or at school events not on school grounds. So Ill just post the google link

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+ACLU+represents+schools+agaisnt+prayer+in+school

Every one of those links has to do with public prayer, in which student's are expected to listen. That is mandatory prayer. Private prayer is not a problem, nor could it be outlawed if anyone wanted to.

We used to have prayer circles outside of our public school. There was no problem with that, as they were voluntary. Only those who wanted to participate were included.

There are no cases that I know of where someone is forced to be religious, if you find a case where some school or government entity is forcing a person to be religious I am with you it must be squashed. Though I do know of cases where children are FORCED to learn the pillars of Islam and have to pretend to pray as is done in Islam or they don’t pass the class.

If they had to come to the the class, then that is definitely something that should be challenged. Again, I think the ACLU would be on the side of the challengers.

ACLU didn’t have a problem with that, probably because they are hypocrites.

Or, perhaps because the didn't know about it.

Or, perhaps it was voluntary.

They probably would oppose the burka but they did not do anything when schools made “special” praying areas for Muslims only, they did nothing when kids were forced to learn the pillars of Islam or made to posture as though they were praying

If those "special praying areas" were voluntary, as were the Christian prayer circles I just described, then of course the ACLU wouldn't have a problem with it. No one should have a problem with it. Now, if students were mandated to come, then it would be a clear violation of the Constitution.

 

[Pandora]

I do not think that the kid should be kicked out for that or the speaker should not be allowed to speak for that. I think the only problem is when someone makes an attempt to legislate religion on someone else or establish a state religion.

Oh I am with you there, but that was the original intent. Government has no rights to establish a state religion.

 

[GenSeneca]

I see what you are saying and I agree with it, I am just used to the term liberals but there is not much liberal about them except for in the areas they want to promote, and I would agree that even though I consider myself a conservative I doubt I am even close to what a real conservative is.

You are probably closer than you think...

Try reading, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin.

Levin understands the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and the Progressives hiding among them... kinda like Anarchists who hide among the Libertarian community. I didn't hear any mainstream conservatives talking about this until Levin came along.

 

[Pandora]

You are probably closer than you think...

Try reading, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin.

Levin understands the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and the Progressives hiding among them... kinda like Anarchists who hide among the Libertarian community. I didn't hear any mainstream conservatives talking about this until Levin came along.

I want to read that one very much. I think Ill go to the library and force them to buy it for me

got to get what I want out of those tax dollars!


Gen have you ever done that? Asked your library for a book that they did not want to have? The library here hates having to buy Bill O's books so its fun to insist on having it because they have to get it for me.

I need to do that with Lavin's book too

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen have you ever done that? Asked your library for a book that they did not want to have?

I have not done that but I certainly admire your spunk and ingenuity. You will like the book a great deal, Levin writes in pretty plain English for being a lawyer.

On the ACLU... Why do they support thought crimes legislation, otherwise known as "Hate Crime" legislation?

Why have they never challenged the Progressive Taxation of Americans?

The violations of our rights that the ACLU agrees with, they not only don't fight but outright support and promote.

 

[Pandora]

I have not done that but I certainly admire your spunk and ingenuity. You will like the book a great deal, Levin writes in pretty plain English for being a lawyer.

On the ACLU... Why do they support thought crimes legislation, otherwise known as "Hate Crime" legislation?

Why have they never challenged the Progressive Taxation of Americans?

The violations of our rights that the ACLU agrees with, they not only don't fight but outright support and promote.

I am in a proud war with librarians and have been for years, they are "generally" really bad people as crazy as that sounds.

ACLU never challenged those things because it’s not in their agenda. They have an agenda as militant as it gets.

I have to give them credit for staying so focused and being able to bull whip their people to stay in line and stay focused though.

 

[samsara15]

There hasn't been any liberalism. Just as there hasn't been any conservatism. All we've seen for more than 100 years is Progressivism and it really is killing the country. Progressives are the ones building and concentrating the power in Washington, away from the states and away from the individual. Progressives are the ones who built and continue expanding the welfare state, they are the ones limiting freedom and otherwise violating the Constitution along with the tenets of Liberalism, as well as the principles of Libertarianism and Conservatism.

That was the point of this thread, to get people on all sides to understand that Progressives in both parties are pitting us against each other. Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives have a great deal in common and we need to unite to defeat the progressive scourge.

You have to learn to recognize the difference between Liberals and Progressives because Progressives will call themselves Liberals. You know the difference between a Rat and a Squirrel right? Well, Progressives are Rats that call themselves squirrels. If you only notice that they are both rodents, you won't notice the difference but if you know squirrels have fluffy tails, you can spot the rats hiding among them.


Its been nearly 100 years since any conservatives have had enough control in Washington to make any significant changes. You don't like Bush, well he was a Progressive Republican, same as his father George Herbert Walker "New World Order" Bush. I guarantee you were not alive the last time a Conservative Republican were in office.

You only think Conservatism is bad because you mistakenly equate Conservatism with religion... You have proudly declared that you are a Socialist, would you also by chance consider yourself an Atheist? As a quid-pro-quo, I am Non-Religious.

I am not an atheist; I am a pantheist of sorts, but I also am non-religious. I will agree with you that perhaps true Conservatism is a thing of the past. I call myself a Socialist, but more accurately, I probably am not. The labels of the past do not fit the people of today.

I cannot continue this disussion too much longer, as I will be going out of town for everal days, beginning tomorrow.

 

[GenSeneca]

I will agree with you that perhaps true Conservatism is a thing of the past.

That was not my statement by meaning or implication. We haven't had a Conservative government in over 100 years but that's not from a lack of Conservatives in the Republican party. The Democrats have not had a Liberal government for about the same amount of time and its not from a lack of Liberals. Both parties went to Progressivism and those in their base kept supporting them because their guy was "the lesser of two evils".

We the electorate have allowed these affronts to our liberties by backing the lesser of two evils for decades. We need to recognize the folly in that thinking, realize where its leading the country and get back to choosing between the better of two goods.

 

[PLC1]

That was not my statement by meaning or implication. We haven't had a Conservative government in over 100 years but that's not from a lack of Conservatives in the Republican party. The Democrats have not had a Liberal government for about the same amount of time and its not from a lack of Liberals. Both parties went to Progressivism and those in their base kept supporting them because their guy was "the lesser of two evils".

We the electorate have allowed these affronts to our liberties by backing the lesser of two evils for decades. We need to recognize the folly in that thinking, realize where its leading the country and get back to choosing between the better of two goods.

Just out of curiosity, is there a difference in your lexicon between statists and progressives?

 

[GenSeneca]

Just out of curiosity, is there a difference in your lexicon between statists and progressives?

No. They are one in the same.

The Political Spectrum Explained:

When you ignore the differences in the positions they espouse on any given topic, you can see that both parties have been steadily "Progressing" toward 100% government control, absolute Statism. In every objective measurement concerning the growth of government power, I have come to the conclusion that Statism and Progressivism are one in the same.

Do you see them as being in any way different from one another?

 

[PLC1]

No. They are one in the same.

The Political Spectrum Explained:

When you ignore the differences in the positions they espouse on any given topic, you can see that both parties have been steadily "Progressing" toward 100% government control, absolute Statism. In every objective measurement concerning the growth of government power, I have come to the conclusion that Statism and Progressivism are one in the same.

Do you see them as being in any way different from one another?

I'm not sure. I'd always thought of the term "progressive" as including mostly social issues: race relations (going back to t he '60s), gay issues of today, abortion, etc.

Of course, the term "statist" seems to have more than one meaning, depending on who is using it as does the term "progressive". I suppose the two could be synonymous. If they are, then without a doubt the progressives have taken over the government.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure. I'd always thought of the term "progressive" as including mostly social issues: race relations (going back to t he '60s), gay issues of today, abortion, etc.

As I said:

When you ignore the differences in the positions they espouse on any given topic, you can see that both parties have been steadily "Progressing" toward 100% government control, absolute Statism.

Think about it this way... No matter what the social agenda they are pushing, both parties need ever growing government power to accomplish their agenda. Whichever party is out of power knows that they will eventually retake control and that's when they begin salivating over the newly found ability to force their social agenda on the American public. In response to whatever social agenda was enacted, the other party takes control, expands government power, and the battle of retribution continues with the same result: Both centralize power in Washington but neither reduces the power of Washington.

Its a game of one-upsmanship where both sides are trying to slide the balance of power from the people to Washington, the social issues are just distracting us from the bigger picture. Many, nearly all, of the social issues people get worked up about would not even be an issue if government didn't have so much power over our lives to begin with.

No matter which party is in control the result is the same; Government keeps winning, Liberty keeps losing.