Progressive Greatest Perversion

[Big Fitz]

Who're you gonna believe? Progressives, or your own damn lying eyes?

 

[code1211]

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. Progressivism is often viewed by its advocates to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.
The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

Done, done and done.

I guess they should disband.

 

[code1211]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam).

CrusaderFrank is a liar.

Oh, snap!

I doubt Frank will be able to show his face, er, I mean ideas around here after that.

And they say words will never hurt. They haven't read YOUR words.

 

[Big Fitz]

A more specific allegation was made, which was that the environmental movement has been "infiltrated" by "progressives" and has become "anti-American." I won't try to argue that all positions taken by environmentalists make sense in terms of protecting the environment or resource husbandry; there is a range of intelligence and rationality in the movement as there is everywhere.

But this thread is founded on a lie that equates progressives/liberals with Communists. That's just bullshit, always has been, and today it's not even politically sensible bullshit, the Cold War having ended more than twenty years ago. Anyone born in the 1980s who saw that allegation wouldn't even call it a lie, as I do, they'd just go, "Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?"

The same is true of the term "Watermelon" that you so love to use. The implication that environmentalists are really Communists in disguise is nonsense. Unlike most people on this forum I suspect, I've actually studied Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. and have some understanding of what Communism is about, and I can tell the difference easily. The allegation was always a lie, capitalizing on the irrational fear of Communism that prevailed during the Cold War (irrational not because Communism wasn't a bad system, but because its chances of being implemented here were, and remain, zero). Because of that widespread fear, it was a politically useful lie in those days, a way to smear anything liberal. But with the end of the Cold War, it isn't even that.

'The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state.... For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objectives of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French Historian Alexis de Tocqueville called soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, partially leading to hard tyranny.... As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.'

Mark Levin

Okay, now I see the problem.

rw's have no clue what "The Modern Liberal" believes.

Actually, we do, and it disgusts us.

 

[code1211]

One of the progressive perversions is subterfuge. Progressives won't even admit to being liberals. They get into the greenie movement and pervert it to the point that the green movement becomes anti-American.

Whitehall is not a liar, I think. Just a fool.

Where did you get the idea that progressives have a problem with being called "liberal"?
Why do you think the environmentalist movement has been "infiltrated" by progressives, when it obviously is, itself, progressive? What makes you call it anti-American?

When the politics of the environment is more important than protecting the environment, then, yea.... I'd suggest that is a problem. It sickens me, as someone who cares very much for the environment, that I cannot do so without ascribing to some asinine political views along with it.

Hence the term 'watermelon' is given to those who use the environment for political gain. If those people actually cared about the environment, they would not use it for politics.

Compare the Global Warming doomsayers to the Ducks unlimited boys and you have a real contrast.

One group tries to protect loons and their habitats while the other group would pretty much fall under their protection.

Also, one group actually is doing some amount of measurable good and having a measurably positive impact while the other is collecting allot of cash and having no positive impact whatever.

 

[The Infidel]

Whitehall is not a liar, I think. Just a fool.

Where did you get the idea that progressives have a problem with being called "liberal"?
Why do you think the environmentalist movement has been "infiltrated" by progressives, when it obviously is, itself, progressive? What makes you call it anti-American?

When the politics of the environment is more important than protecting the environment, then, yea.... I'd suggest that is a problem. It sickens me, as someone who cares very much for the environment, that I cannot do so without ascribing to some asinine political views along with it.

Hence the term 'watermelon' is given to those who use the environment for political gain. If those people actually cared about the environment, they would not use it for politics.

Compare the Global Warming doomsayers to the Ducks unlimited boys and you have a real contrast.

One group tries to protect loons and their habitats while the other group would pretty much fall under their protection.

Also, one group actually is doing some amount of measurable good and having a measurably positive impact while the other is collecting allot of cash and having no positive impact whatever.

Duck hunters rule!!!

 

[code1211]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

You think China and North Korea are progressive? When they put a policeman in every house? That would be pure conservatism. It's the basis for the right wing "social agenda". No way around that one. Not even you can dodge that pie in the face ---> SMACK!

You have no idea what Conservatism is, do you, and yet you still ascribe the goals tactics of Liberalism to Conservatism.

It's humorous that a person who is on an unending drive to increase the size and influence of government condemns those exact goals and attributes them to the group that he hates.

Do you not understand that the Liberal agenda is to control each individual, his wealth, his activity and his education? The Liberal wants to assure that any individual expression is eliminated and any privately held convictions are homogenized and regimented?

If this has slipped past you, you are unconscious.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whitehall is not a liar, I think. Just a fool.

Where did you get the idea that progressives have a problem with being called "liberal"?
Why do you think the environmentalist movement has been "infiltrated" by progressives, when it obviously is, itself, progressive? What makes you call it anti-American?

Your kidding right??

You guys hate it when your pointed out to be 'liberal'. There was several threads here recently about the fact that you all want to be called 'progressive' now

As for the environmental movement, its anti-capitalist and a joke! It has become a religion rather than a science.
Sure we need regulations, but MY GAWD... the red tape and beaurocratic BS you have to wade thru is flat ridiculous.

But you 'libs' love big gov't.

The progressive liberals I know are quite proud of the fact, as am I. If I were rw/pub/bag right now, I'd be hanging my head in shame. OTOH, if I were rw (etc), I probably wouldn't know just how dumb that really is.

The op is dumb, makes no sense, inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.

I am proud to call myself a liberal too. Nutters tried to make it a word describing weakness....you know.....limp-wristed, bleeding-heart, flaming.......but it does not stick. Nutters ought to be thankful that we liberals are rule of law type people. Otherwise, they'd not stand a chance.

 

[code1211]

Whitehall is not a liar, I think. Just a fool.

Where did you get the idea that progressives have a problem with being called "liberal"?
Why do you think the environmentalist movement has been "infiltrated" by progressives, when it obviously is, itself, progressive? What makes you call it anti-American?

Your kidding right??

You guys hate it when your pointed out to be 'liberal'. There was several threads here recently about the fact that you all want to be called 'progressive' now

As for the environmental movement, its anti-capitalist and a joke! It has become a religion rather than a science.
Sure we need regulations, but MY GAWD... the red tape and beaurocratic BS you have to wade thru is flat ridiculous.

But you 'libs' love big gov't.

The progressive liberals I know are quite proud of the fact, as am I. If I were rw/pub/bag right now, I'd be hanging my head in shame. OTOH, if I were rw (etc), I probably wouldn't know just how dumb that really is.

The op is dumb, makes no sense, inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.

In what ways exactly will a Progressive guard my individual liberties more completely than a Conservative?

 

[The Infidel]

Your kidding right??

You guys hate it when your pointed out to be 'liberal'. There was several threads here recently about the fact that you all want to be called 'progressive' now

As for the environmental movement, its anti-capitalist and a joke! It has become a religion rather than a science.
Sure we need regulations, but MY GAWD... the red tape and beaurocratic BS you have to wade thru is flat ridiculous.

But you 'libs' love big gov't.

The progressive liberals I know are quite proud of the fact, as am I. If I were rw/pub/bag right now, I'd be hanging my head in shame. OTOH, if I were rw (etc), I probably wouldn't know just how dumb that really is.

The op is dumb, makes no sense, inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.

I am proud to call myself a liberal too. Nutters tried to make it a word describing weakness....you know.....limp-wristed, bleeding-heart, flaming.......but it does not stick. Nutters ought to be thankful that we liberals are rule of law type people. Otherwise, they'd not stand a chance.

'Is it clear now why liberals want to call themselves “progressives”? Obviously, they recognize that most Americans reject liberalism for the corrosive, anti-American, self-destructive doctrine that it is. So they have to “repackage” their poison with a better-sounding name to fool people into buying the same old rot. Incidentally, “progressivism” is really a regressive ideology, one centered around the old-world regressive idea that elites can run your life better than you can, the pre-American idea that the average person doesn’t need and shouldn’t have too much freedom.'

Progressive Label Rehabilitates the Same Old Liberal Poison

 

[code1211]

When the politics of the environment is more important than protecting the environment, then, yea.... I'd suggest that is a problem. It sickens me, as someone who cares very much for the environment, that I cannot do so without ascribing to some asinine political views along with it.

Hence the term 'watermelon' is given to those who use the environment for political gain. If those people actually cared about the environment, they would not use it for politics.

Compare the Global Warming doomsayers to the Ducks unlimited boys and you have a real contrast.

One group tries to protect loons and their habitats while the other group would pretty much fall under their protection.

Also, one group actually is doing some amount of measurable good and having a measurably positive impact while the other is collecting allot of cash and having no positive impact whatever.

Duck hunters rule!!!

I had to look twice to spot the model in the photo. That camoflage really works!

 

[The Infidel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU&feature=related]That's Despicable - YouTube[/ame]

 

[code1211]

Your kidding right??

You guys hate it when your pointed out to be 'liberal'. There was several threads here recently about the fact that you all want to be called 'progressive' now

As for the environmental movement, its anti-capitalist and a joke! It has become a religion rather than a science.
Sure we need regulations, but MY GAWD... the red tape and beaurocratic BS you have to wade thru is flat ridiculous.

But you 'libs' love big gov't.

The progressive liberals I know are quite proud of the fact, as am I. If I were rw/pub/bag right now, I'd be hanging my head in shame. OTOH, if I were rw (etc), I probably wouldn't know just how dumb that really is.

The op is dumb, makes no sense, inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.

I am proud to call myself a liberal too. Nutters tried to make it a word describing weakness....you know.....limp-wristed, bleeding-heart, flaming.......but it does not stick. Nutters ought to be thankful that we liberals are rule of law type people. Otherwise, they'd not stand a chance.

I can never get it straight...

Was that satire or sarcasm?

 

[Liability]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

You think China and North Korea are progressive? When they put a policeman in every house? That would be pure conservatism. It's the basis for the right wing "social agenda". No way around that one. Not even you can dodge that pie in the face ---> SMACK!

It's actually really easy to 'dodge'... since it is entirely bullshit.

SMACK!

rderp is too fucking stupid to see what a fucking giant asshole he proves himself to be all the time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

You think China and North Korea are progressive? When they put a policeman in every house? That would be pure conservatism. It's the basis for the right wing "social agenda". No way around that one. Not even you can dodge that pie in the face ---> SMACK!

They are as Progressive as it gets

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

Nonsense.

There’s been no greater ally of the Constitution and civil liberties than liberals. During the 50s and 60s alone progressive jurists fought for the rights of average Americans against conservative efforts to expand the size of government and its authority:

Brown V. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas - 1954 - Civil Rights (14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause)Linda Brown, a student in the segregated Topeka Kansas school district had to walk 5 miles to school each day. Across the train tracks from her house there was a white school she was unable to attend. Oliver Brown enlisted the help of the NAACP to ensure that his daughter was able to go to the best school possible. Thurgood Marshall, then head of the NAACP, challenged the segregation of the school claiming that the laws violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution that said that all citizens were to receive "equal protection under the law." The state argued that Plessey v Ferguson had set the precedent and that the law was clear on this point.
The court affirmed the position of Marshall and the Brown family and overturned the precedent set by the Plessey decision(that schools could be separate but equal). Justice Earl Warren claimed that "in the eyes of the law, justice was color-blind." In ruling in favor of Brown the court ordered the integration of America "with all deliberate speed." The civil rights movement had begun!

Mapp v. Ohio - 1962 - Search and Seizure (4th and 14th Amendments, illegal evidence and Due Process Clause)Dollree Mapp was suspected of having information in her home that would implicate a suspected bomber. The police came to her home and asked if they might search the residence. Ms. Mapp called her lawyer and was advised to ask for a warrant. The police did not have a warrant and were asked to leave. Hours later the police returned and forcibly entered the residence. Ms. Mapp demanded to see the warrant and a piece of paper was waved in her face. Ms. Mapp grabbed the paper and tucked it in her blouse. A struggle ensued where Ms. Mapp was knocked to the ground as police retrieved the supposed warrant. Outside Ms. Mapp's attorney arrived on the scene but was prevented from entering the residence. The police found pornographic materials in the house and Ms. Mapp was arrested for possession of lewd materials. Ms. Mapp was convicted of this crime. Ms.. Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that the search of her home was in violation of her rights. Admitting evidence gained by illegal searches was permitted by some States before Mapp.
The court ruled that the evidence obtained in the search was inadmissible because it was seized in an illegal search. In ruling this way the court created the "exclusionary rule" which makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in court. This ruling upheld the principles of the fourth amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright - 1963 - Right To Counsel (6th Amendment) Gideon was accused of breaking into a poolroom. Gideon, an ex con, was too poor to pay for a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. The court refused to grant his request stating that lawyers were only provided for those accused of committing capital crimes like murder, rape, etc. Gideon was tried and was forced to defend himself. While in prison Gideon hand wrote a plea to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. At this point he received representation from lawyers who were attracted to his case. Gideon argued that his right to a fair trial was violated.
Gideon's position was upheld. The Court ruled that all citizens must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one. This is regardless of the type of crime.

Escobedo v Illinois - 1964 - Right To Counsel (6th Amendment) Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murder and brought to the police station. He repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but was never allowed out of the interrogation room. His lawyer even went so far as to come to the police station in search of him, but was denied access. Escobedo then confessed while under interrogation to firing the shot that killed the victim. As a result, he was soon convicted. Escobedo appealed to the Supreme Court and it overturned the conviction. The Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to illegal confessions and ruled that Escobedo's confession should not have been allowed in as evidence. The Court also defined the "Escobedo Rule" which holds that individuals have the right to an attorney when an "investigation is no longer a general inquiry...but has begun to focus on a particular suspect..." The ruling went on to detail that (Where) the suspect has been taken into custody...the suspect has requested...his lawyer, and the police have not...warned him of his right to remain silent, the accused has been denied...counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment."

Miranda v Arizona - 1966 - Rights of the Accused (5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments)Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnaping and rape of a young woman. Upon arrest Miranda was questioned for two hours. He never asked for a lawyer and eventually confessed to the crime. Later, however, a lawyer representing Miranda appealed the case to the Supreme Court claiming that Miranda's rights had been violated. Miranda was acquitted. The Court ruled that citizens must be informed of their rights prior to questioning. Any evidence or statement obtained prior to a suspect being read his/her rights is inadmissible. This has led to what is commonly referred to as one's "Miranda Rights" having to be read upon questioning or arrest. They are: "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can, and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you." Miranda was later killed in a barroom brawl, stabbed to death.

Engle v Vitale - 1962 - Separation of Church and State (1st Amendment Establishment Clause)In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that the prayer be said by students in public schools on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.
The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first amendment. Prayer in schools was to be considered unconstitutional.

Abington School District v. Schempp - 1963 - Separation of Church and State (1st Amendment Establishment Clause)This case involved a Pennsylvania law requiring that at least ten Bible verses be read in public schools at the beginning of each day. A family in Abington(Schempp), sued the school district for violating the first amendment of the constitution. Just as in Engle v Vitale, religious instruction in school was deemed to violate the 1st Amendment of the constitution.

Tinker v. Des Moines - 1969 - Symbolic Speech (1st Amendment)Several students and parents in Des Moines organized a protest of the Vietnam War. Students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest. When the school found out they warned all the students and parents that anyone wearing the armbands would be suspended. The Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended. Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filed suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The school claimed that the armbands were disruptive.
The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech."

Katz v. United States - 1961 - Search and Seizure (Wiretaps) (4th Amendment Unreasonable Search and Seizure) Katz was arrested for illegal gambling after using a public phone to transmit "gambling information." The FBI had attached an electronic listening/recording device onto the outside of the public phone booth that Katz habitually used. They argued that this constituted a legal action since they never actually entered the phone booth. The Court, however, ruled in favor of Katz, stating the Fourth Amendment allowed for the protection of a person and not just a person's property against illegal searches. Whatever a citizen "seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 (14th Amendment, Due Process Clause) In this case the Court struck down a state law that prohibited the use of contraceptives, even among married couples. The Court proclaimed (critics said “invented”) a “right of privacy” that soon provided the basis for decisions protecting women’s abortion rights. The decision is significant for raising more careful inspection the concept of “unenumerated rights” in the 9th Amendment, later central to Roe v. Wade 1973(which legalized abortions in the United States)

SOME MAJOR DECISIONS OF THE WARREN COURT

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

rw's have no clue what "The Modern Liberal" believes.

True. Of course facts are anathema to rightist dogma.

Another 'we're right and you're totally wrong' argument...classic.

Both parties and their members embedded in the establishment love big corporate-welfare government.

The proof is in the pudding. When was the last time the size of the Federal Government decreased?

The ‘size’ of the Federal government is a consequence of America’s success, growth, and development as a modern First World industrialized Super Power – it is a consequence, not a cause. As pragmatists. liberals understand this, accept it as neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ but as a phenomenon of the evolution of the American Nation.

The Constitution, its case law, and the people’s right to avail themselves of the courts to seek remedy to government excess renders the question of the ‘size’ of government moot.

It is the erosion of the Constitution and its case law by conservative ideologues – attempting to turn back the hands of time – that presents the greatest threat to our civil liberties, not the ‘size’ of government.

 

[bripat9643]

If there is not a Liberal=communist correlation to Godwin's law there ought to be.

"Godwin's Law" is just a scam designed to protect liberals from being exposed for what they really are: Nazis.

It only came into existence after the right started pointing out the stunning similarities between liberalism and fascism. Prior to that, liberals accused conservatives of being fascists and Nazis with abandon, and you never heard a peep about "Godwin's law."

 

[jillian]

You think China and North Korea are progressive? When they put a policeman in every house? That would be pure conservatism. It's the basis for the right wing "social agenda". No way around that one. Not even you can dodge that pie in the face ---> SMACK!

It's actually really easy to 'dodge'... since it is entirely bullshit.

SMACK!

rderp is too fucking stupid to see what a fucking giant asshole he proves himself to be all the time.

you're concerned about him??

ummmmm... he's totally outstupided by the o/p and his little rightwingnut friends.

and yes, i know outstupided isn't a word.

 

[bripat9643]

You think China and North Korea are progressive? When they put a policeman in every house? That would be pure conservatism.

Nope, that's the essence of liberalism. Liberals have created all kinds of gestapo like organizations. Take the IRS, for example, which requires you to inform on yourself. They created the TSA, which feels you up in the airport and strip searches grandma.

It's the basis for the right wing "social agenda". No way around that one. Not even you can dodge that pie in the face ---> SMACK!

When has anyone ever been arrested to enforce "the right wing social agenda?" However, millions have been arrested enforcing the progressive socialist police state. Just consider all the people the IRS prosecutes every year.