Dear Progressives

[GenSeneca]

My post was not meant to be about our foriegn policy differences. I just wanted to compare the tactics the Progressives employ against America's enemies to the tactics they use against their fellow Americans. It seems to me that you guys are much less "open-minded" toward those who disagree with you domestically than you are about those who disagree with you internationally.

Am I saying that the Right isn't also guilty of demonizing their political enemies? Of course not... both sides are guilty of that. Whats the result? Both sides have people who are an embarrassment to their own group... we needn't look any further than the recently banned Conservativetoo on the Right and Mr.Shaman on the Left as examples of propoganda and stereotypes run amock. Both sides seem to be interested in just one thing, getting power to force their way on others.

I believe you and your ideas, and the policy's you support have led directly to the complaints of those you call our enemies.... your ideas created them. "You", your world view is the fundamental problem. You are the root cause.

This is precisely illustrative of the point I made in my post.... You have no idea what policies I support, or have supported, because you don't bother listening to what I say or talking to me as though we are equals, much less as though we are both Americans and interested in whats best for our country.

All you know is that I began by saying I disagreed with Progressives, that set you off, and you replied to me as though I was the racist, sexist, homophobe warmongering fascist Neo-con that the Left has stereotyped all opposition as being. Do you draw any distinctions between the Libertarians, Republicans and the Conservatives? There are clear lines of separation, but you wouldn't know it by listening to the Left assault those who disagree with them.

You claim to already know what my worldview is... and reject it... yet you've never inquired as to exactly what it is I believe - you just instinctually know your's is superior and mine is evil. You even go so far as to blame me for being at the root of our nations problems.... Thats known as scapegoating.... You are attempting to excuse yourself, and those on your side, of any culpability in the problems facing our nation. I have always said that our nations problems are bipartisan ones, created and exacerbated by both parties, sometimes working with each other and other times working against each other.

Well, we're going to have to work together to fix those problems and the way to do that is not by telling me its all my fault. Be willing to accept half the blame, I am. Its our burden and we can't push it off on one side or the other because then nothing of value will ever be accomplished.... the problems and the animosity will only get worse.

Arguing politically at home, although nasty at times, tends to hurt no one.

If the Religious Right told you that you had to live as though you were a God fearing Christian, whether you believed or not, would you have a problem with that? I would.... and I fight against those on the Right who would try to force their will, or morality, onto people who disagree.

Now lets look at the Progressives. They are telling me I have to live as though I believe in Man Made Global Warming, whether I do or not... do you have a problem with that? I do... and I intend to fight against them for trying to impose their will, and morality, on people like me who disagree.

In both cases, if you feel you have the superior argument, you should make your case and get people to go along willingly, voluntarily - not by using the power of government to force people to act, to live or to think as you want them to. I find both measures to be authoritarian and antithetical to the founding principles of our country.

 

[GenSeneca]

Great post TV.

You are wrong Gen, again

I do not want to see your country hurt but if hurting your country a bit will stop the enormous hurt it meets out on the rest of the world then it would not do any harm for you to get a taste of your own medicine.

Sometimes I think it is the only way that people like you can understand that killing people and making others refugees is really ****ing bad.

Cos at present you seem extraordinarily blase about the number of people the US kills.

It appears I was correct, at least based on the statements you just made. You are no friend of America, you feel we are an unjust nation and deserve to have our people killed... You are, as I said, an enemy to Americans because you are wishing death upon us as retribution for the "evil" you see us as having wraught on the rest of the world. (ignoring of course the fact that your country has stood shoulder to shoulder with us ever since we saved your sorry assets from the Nazi's - you were with us in Afghanistan and Iraq)

And while I don't want this thread to be about foriegn policy.... why exactly were you glad to see Obama win the White House? Its not like he's going to improve your opinion of my country.... He has stated, as public military policy, his intentions to attack "sovereign" nations with bombings and cross boarder raids. Nations like Pakistan, who have never attacked us...

Not to mention your diehard belief that 9/11 was an inside job... We framed Saudi's and Egyptians, operating out of Afghanistan, as the perpetrators of 9/11 in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq. Seriously, thats a special level of hatred for America that lets you rationalize that as being logical.

Your hatred for America can never be quelled so long as we act in our own interests, or in the interests of our allies. Its only when we can no longer defend ourselves and have to roll over and let attacks on us, and our allies, go completely unanswered that you will feel any sense of redemption.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Read slowly Dawks...here is the question again.

"Give me one time in history where another nation, country or tribe left another alone, even though they wanted the spoils of the country?"

 

[Lagboltz]

Quote:Originally Posted by TVoffBrainOn
I believe you and your ideas, and the policy's you support have led directly to the complaints of those you call our enemies.... your ideas created them. "You", your world view is the fundamental problem. You are the root cause.

If TV made it clear he was referring to the conservative movement in general I would agree with him. GenSeneca is correct in that TV shouldn't be talking about him in particular. I have had conservatives assume thoughts in my brain and attack me for it. That just leads to annoying digressions.

Now lets look at the Progressives. They are telling me I have to live as though I believe in Man Made Global Warming, whether I do or not... do you have a problem with that? I do... and I intend to fight against them for trying to impose their will, and morality, on people like me who disagree.

I hate to argue examples, because it is an annoying digression from your main theme, but I will do it anyway because you, who started this thread brought it up. The following science and technology groups have said that human activity is most likely altering the earth's climate.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

This is only about half the agencies that say that human activity is causing global warning. I got tired of copying and pasting them. You will have to pick a different example if you want to make your point with anyone. The above groups represent thousands of distinguished scientists who know what they are talking about. Why don't you believe them?

If the Religious Right told you that you had to live as though you were a God fearing Christian, whether you believed or not, would you have a problem with that? I would.... and I fight against those on the Right who would try to force their will, or morality, onto people who disagree.

Yes I would have a problem, but the US has religious freedom which is a personal matter. The science of global warming is not personal and cuts across all religions, countries, and governments.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

My post was not meant to be about our foriegn policy differences. I just wanted to compare the tactics the Progressives employ against America's enemies to the tactics they use against their fellow Americans. It seems to me that you guys are much less "open-minded" toward those who disagree with you domestically than you are about those who disagree with you internationally.

And again, my response is that I see those I disagree with domestically(neo-conservative) as the biggest part of the problem with those I disagree with Internationally (terrorists).

This is precisely illustrative of the point I made in my post.... You have no idea what policies I support, or have supported, because you don't bother listening to what I say or talking to me as though we are equals, much less as though we are both Americans and interested in whats best for our country.

I put the word YOU in quotations to try to give the idea that You are the opposite of Me. I don't know what you world view is, but from the insinuations of your original post, I know it's the opposite of mine.

All you know is that I began by saying I disagreed with Progressives, that set you off, and you replied to me as though I was the racist, sexist, homophobe warmongering fascist Neo-con that the Left has stereotyped all opposition as being. Do you draw any distinctions between the Libertarians, Republicans and the Conservatives? There are clear lines of separation, but you wouldn't know it by listening to the Left assault those who disagree with them.

I was only replying to your post. I don't get "set off".

You claim to already know what my worldview is... and reject it... yet you've never inquired as to exactly what it is I believe - you just instinctually know your's is superior and mine is evil. You even go so far as to blame me for being at the root of our nations problems.... Thats known as scapegoating.... You are attempting to excuse yourself, and those on your side, of any culpability in the problems facing our nation. I have always said that our nations problems are bipartisan ones, created and exacerbated by both parties, sometimes working with each other and other times working against each other.

I have no idea what your world view is. But what I inferred from the original post was that you are a supporter of the foreign policy of the last 8 years. You are probably a believer in "they hate us because of our freedoms".

Well, we're going to have to work together to fix those problems and the way to do that is not by telling me its all my fault. Be willing to accept half the blame, I am. Its our burden and we can't push it off on one side or the other because then nothing of value will ever be accomplished.... the problems and the animosity will only get worse.

I have no animosity, but if the Right thinks they are getting a free pass on the last 8 years....well that's just ridiculous. What do I have to accept blame for, I didn't vote for any those yahoos.

If the Religious Right told you that you had to live as though you were a God fearing Christian, whether you believed or not, would you have a problem with that? I would.... and I fight against those on the Right who would try to force their will, or morality, onto people who disagree.

So you are pro-choice?

Now lets look at the Progressives. They are telling me I have to live as though I believe in Man Made Global Warming, whether I do or not... do you have a problem with that? I do... and I intend to fight against them for trying to impose their will, and morality, on people like me who disagree.

In what way are they telling you to live as though Global Warming is man made?

I don't know or care if it is or isn't man made. But if the argument helps lead to the new green economy of the future that ends dependancy and starts off a new era of economic growth in this country... then ****ing great.

In both cases, if you feel you have the superior argument, you should make your case and get people to go along willingly, voluntarily - not by using the power of government to force people to act, to live or to think as you want them to. I find both measures to be authoritarian and antithetical to the founding principles of our country.

I don't even know what this means. We vote for candidates and they use the power of gov't to hopefully carry out the things we elected them to do.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

If TV made it clear he was referring to the conservative movement in general I would agree with him. GenSeneca is correct in that TV shouldn't be talking about him in particular. I have had conservatives assume thoughts in my brain and attack me for it. That just leads to annoying digressions.

I should've spelled it out clearer. But you are correct. That was exactly my intention. It wasn't meant to be personal.

 

[GenSeneca]

There are several of you guys responding, so bear with me... I'm trying to tackle responses in order.

Also, I want to make one thing crystal clear... I was addressing people who call themselves Progressives. There is a difference between Liberals and Progressives.

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal". Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies.

Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on a concept of natural rights and civil liberties, and the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect those rights.

I have far more in common with Liberals than I do Progressives. So I have no interest in lumping them together. If there are any Liberals who take the time to listen to what I say, and compare that to the Progressives, they may find they have more in common with me than the Progressives.

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations.

I am strongly opposed to the proposals and policies that Progressives seek to implement and find them unconstitutional.

For those who repeatedly, and intentionally, lump me in with the Neo-cons (Whom I oppose... but since we're both on the right, the simpletons make no distinctions) I would like to remind everyone that I describe myself as CaLiCo = Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative. Those are in order of importance to me and if you are familiar with Libertarian philosophy, you will understand that my Conservative values begin and end with lower taxes, individual liberty, small government, personal responsibility and a wish to return to our Constitutional roots. I'm also NOT religious, at all, so being lumped in with the "religious right" is frustrating as well.

Your premise is a bit presumptive in that you are saying that progressives want to "avoid making [enemies] out as bad people".

That was not my premise. Progressives are quick to paint their political rivals as bad people - no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. As for America's enemies, Progressives are more reluctant to make them out as bad people, preferring to try and "understand" why our enemies hate us and grant their claims some level of legitimacy... while at the same time making zero effort to understand where I'm coming from or grant my complaints any level of legitimacy - they simply seek to discredit me by painting me as a Neo-Con, Fascist, Racist, Sexist etc. because they seem to think that negates any points I have to make and excuses them from having to listen or give consideration to my views.

The first question is, why do some liberals want to consider diplomacy first and war as a last resort? Rephrasing the question that way answers the question.

Sorry, but you have read into that more than what was offered and you also point to Liberals, whom I tend to see eye to eye with. I should hope EVERYONE would want to consider exhaustive diplomacy first and war as a last resort... I know I do. So can we please drop this as being a foreign policy difference? My post was NOT meant to be about foreign policy.

To be fair, I would strike out the word "amicably". Diplomacy is not always amicable. I don't understand why you would consider that anyone here would think a relationship with Kim Jong, or Ahmadinejad as "amicable."

How about peaceably? How many Progressives think its perfectly fine for Iran to have Nukes? How many are willing to go to war, or even launch strikes and raids, to prevent such a situation from creating a nuclear arms race in the Middle East?

I would like to rephrase the second question more fairly: "Why are progressives and conservatives always at each other's throats?"

Thats an easy one to answer but first, I'd like to broaden this particular question and make it a Right vs. Left question...

Why are we at each others throats? Because government has been grown to the point where its a metaphorical gun pointed at the head of the side not in power. Capitalists, like myself, and Libertarians, like myself, would suggest we should ALL AGREE to dismantle that gun so neither side has to fear the other side having possession. Conservatives, like myself, say that if there must be a gun... it should be pointed outside our borders and not at our own people.

You may see only your side of it, but liberals see conservatives in a similar light.

You're back to Liberals again... I'll let it slide but want to emphasize the point that I have very much in common with Liberals and very, very little in common with Progressives. As to your point... I do see both sides because I've been on both sides. So now, I'm trying to convince both sides to find the common ground necessary to dismantle our common domestic enemy - An overreaching, overbearing, oppressive Government and its unconstitutional powers.

 

[GenSeneca]

If TV made it clear he was referring to the conservative movement in general I would agree with him.

And I would say you're both wrong because you're confusing (or don't know the difference) between Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. They are NOT the same... Conservatives are far more likely to be rational about situations where the Neo-Cons are all about shooting first and asking questions later. Bush is not a Conservative... his advisers were not Conservatives... His policies of rushing to war, explosive debt, big government etc were NOT Conservative. The most "Conservative" thing he did was lower taxes - for everyone.

GenSeneca is correct in that TV shouldn't be talking about him in particular.

I didn't take it personally because I know its a conditioned response. The propaganda of the Left has everyone conditioned to equate all persons on the Right as being Neo-Cons - regardless of their actual stances, positions, or statements - and drawing NO distinctions between the many philosophies that co-exist on the right.

I have had conservatives assume thoughts in my brain and attack me for it. That just leads to annoying digressions.

Conditioned response, thanks to the propaganda from the Right.

I hate to argue examples, because it is an annoying digression from your main theme, but I will do it anyway because you, who started this thread brought it up.....The above groups represent thousands of distinguished scientists who know what they are talking about. Why don't you believe them?

There is an equal number of equally distinguished scientists who know what they are talking about and say its not Man Made. Why don't you believe them? Is there no legitimate opposition?

Yes I would have a problem, but the US has religious freedom which is a personal matter. The science of global warming is not personal and cuts across all religions, countries, and governments.

The point was, who are you to force me to live my life a certain way in the name of something I don't believe to be true - based on the evidence and arguments that have been provided to me?

Read my Blog Post about Carbon Credits... I'm SUPER Green but not because of some "we need to same the planet" environmental reason... I live "Green" because its more economical. Forcing industry to go "green" however, and heaping taxation and regulation on them, is NOT economical.... its disastrous. Obama has admitted that his proposals to force industry to go "Green" would result in "skyrocketing" costs for electricity.

I'm fine with a "green" economy, so long as we convince people and industry to do so by their own volition - rather than forcing them to do so through the power of Government. After all, I don't see where Government derives the Constitutional authority to do this - but the Constitution has never been more than a piece of paper to Progressives.

 

[GenSeneca]

And again, my response is that I see those I disagree with domestically(neo-conservative) as the biggest part of the problem with those I disagree with Internationally (terrorists).

Like I said to Lag... I feel it was nothing more than a conditioned response on your part. Please name for me someone on this board that proudly wears the label of Neo-Conservative... I've yet to meet even one... and I'm all about people labeling themselves politically, just as they do sexually and religiously, to prevent this sort of confusion.

I'm proud to be CaLiCo - Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative and you will never find me advocating the STATIST domestic policies, or the interventionist foreign policies that the Neo-Cons have to offer.

I put the word YOU in quotations to try to give the idea that You are the opposite of Me. I don't know what you world view is, but from the insinuations of your original post, I know it's the opposite of mine.

This just further proves my point about stereotyping anyone who disagrees as being the exact opposite of yourself - its a conditioned response. Perhaps if you took the time to actual discuss issues with me, you'd find we have common ground. You even admit you don't know where I stand, but you know its the opposite of you.... is that the statement of an open-minded individual?

I was only replying to your post. I don't get "set off".

Fair enough... but you were very passionate about who you thought I was and what you thought I stood for.

I have no idea what your world view is. But what I inferred from the original post was that you are a supporter of the foreign policy of the last 8 years. You are probably a believer in "they hate us because of our freedoms".

Here we are.... you shot first and are asking questions later. There has been very little that I've supported Bush on... I didn't vote for Bush - I voted for the Natural Law party in 2000 and the Libertarian candidate in 2004 - I was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq because I felt we had enough on our hands with Afghanistan and needed to finish the job there but once we went in... I felt, and still do, that we took on the responsibility to rebuild what we destroyed and stabilize what we destabilized, an unfortunate obligation.

I have no animosity, but if the Right thinks they are getting a free pass on the last 8 years....well that's just ridiculous.

Bush's approval rating is 27%.... You really think everyone on the Right is a huge fan of Bush? Democrats were in Congress those 8 years and the Republicans DID NOT have a filibuster proof majority, so Democrats - in huge numbers - signed off on the war in Iraq, on the deficit spending and all the other things you seem to want to pretend they had no role in passing. Why do they get a pass?

What do I have to accept blame for, I didn't vote for any those yahoos.

I didn't either... why do I have to accept blame? Because I'm an American, Bush was OUR president and the screwballs in Washington are OUR representatives.... its for that reason that I will accept an EQUAL share of the responsibility for the failures of our politicians.

So you are pro-choice?

Nope. I'm fundamentally opposed to Abortion and NOT because of Religious beliefs. HOWEVER, I'm also NOT a statist and feel there are ways of addressing the issue without using the power of government to force others to conform with my way of thinking.

In what way are they telling you to live as though Global Warming is man made?

Taxes and Regulation.

I don't know or care if it is or isn't man made. But if the argument helps lead to the new green economy of the future that ends dependancy and starts off a new era of economic growth in this country... then ****ing great.

When its something you want, you don't mind government using their power to force others to comply... but when its something you don't want... will you just accept it as being "****ing great" then?

Are you ready to see your electricity bill "skyrocket" and pay 4 times as much for the power you currently use? Are you prepared to watch the prices of all goods and services equally "skyrocket" because the cost of production and transportation has resulted in higher prices? Have you given any consideration to the repercussions of what it is your advocating or are you just looking through rose colored glasses at all the "wonderful" results envisioned?

I don't even know what this means. We vote for candidates and they use the power of gov't to hopefully carry out the things we elected them to do.

Think President Sarah Palin and imagine what she would try to force you to do through the power of government and maybe, just maybe, you can begin to see the point I was trying to make.

Neither side should fear the other holding office but because government has grown to be such a monster... there is nothing more terrifying than the "other" side having complete, unchecked control. If Government were limited to its constitutional duties of simply securing, safeguarding and protecting the rights and liberties of its citizens... nobody would really care who was in office.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think you are misunderstanding and severely misstating the progressive position.

First, my problem with the "Progressive" position on foreign policy is that they seem to be interested in broadcasting our intended actions ahead of time as well as having no compunction against revealing our methods.

For instance: A timetable for withdraw is fine when done in secret, between our military and the host country but it sends a clear message to our enemies when we make it public - lay low, let the Americans leave, then retake the country with force.

Another example: the New York Times couldn't wait to tell the world how America was using money transfers and cell phone conversations to track down terrorists. Did that help our effort? Nope. It made our job that much more difficult. I didn't hear any Progressives complaining about this... instead they used it as an opportunity to attack Bush for violating the rights of citizens (who just happened to be wiring money to, or having conversations with, known terrorists).

A third example: Under Clinton, we had ECHELON - which snooped through peoples emails and listened in on phone conversations (FISA also did the wiretapping thing). We had the Office of Information Awareness - who was given the authority, under Clintons orders, to create a "file" on every single American - all 300 million of us. There were other programs to, but they were secret, Republicans didn't leak these national security secrets and Democrats had no interest in telling the public what they were up to. The Patriot Act abolished these programs and made our national security/domestic spy programs public, gave them congressional and judicial oversight and provided sunset clauses for the legislation... and what happened? Bush was eviscerated by public opinion - with the Progressives leading the charge.

Now as to the point that I was making... I have been called a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, fascist, warmonger (not usually all at once) for not agreeing with the Progressive agenda. Lets contrast that to our nations enemies, shall we?

Racists: They have called Obama a house negro.

Sexists: Women are forced to wear burkas, when a woman is raped - the man who raped her goes free and she is executed as an honor killing, women are not allowed to learn, vote, speak (unless spoken too) and they certainly are not allowed to hold any positions of power.

Bigot: Ask them what they think of Jews.

Homophobe: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to our country, stood before a crowd of Americans, and declared there were no homosexuals in Iran - could it be because homosexuality is punishable by death under Sharia law?

Fascist: For some reason, Progressives are totally at ease with calling fellow Americans fascists on a regular basis (an attempt to silence or discredit those who disagree) but are offended when someone like myself calls our nations enemies fascists (even though they are) as they think its reflects a lack of cultural sensitivity on my part.... Can't paint our enemies with such broad strokes but its perfectly fine to do so with your political rivals.

Warmonger: These people have been kidnapping, torturing and killing Americans for more than 3 decades now... but its those of us who seek to bring the fight to the enemy before they can do these things that are marked as warmongers.

So you have accused me of misstating and misunderstanding the progressive position, but what happened after my post? A bunch of you guys, without knowing my actual position, began attacking my foreign policy position as being that of the stereotypical Neo-con "shoot first ask questions later" warmonger approach.

Anyone out there beginning to see my point yet? Progressives are fast and loose with the facts and name calling when it comes to their political rivals but far more calculating and cautious when it comes to our mutual enemies. Physical violence and military force aside, Progressives seem far more respectful to our enemies than their fellow Americans.

 

[rushhannity]

Dawkins is ignorant. Take him with a grain of salt and forget him.
Not worth our time.

 

[rushhannity]

These Libs are not Americans, they are socialist comunist B&^%$#*s.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

the voice of reason.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In short I see it as Shaman says, "when did you stop beating your wife" type question, and will get responses such as Dawkinsrocks.

Any time someone asks such "loaded"-questions, as Why do you have more respect for our nations enemies than your fellow Americans?....it's (merely) one more example of someone relying on "Everyone knows...."-type logic; based on Zero, but still hopeful (if repeated, often-enough) it becomes one more Absolute.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Thank you!!! We ARE INDEED AN AGRESSIVE NATION!! And we will stay that way. We will protect ourselves no matter what!

Yeah....we've got quite-the-history of protecting-ourselves.

Typically, people-like-you also expect a response to Why do they hate us??!!!