The Four Pillars of Progressivism

[Iceweasel]

You're a great propagandist, but the fact is that the tenets of progressivism are what Progressives, not their opponents, say they are. What do Progressives say are their main tenets?

• The distrust of concentrated wealth and power in the hands of corporate oligarchy or aristocracy.
  
• Strong proponents of workplace regulations and the living wage.
  
• Environmental stewardship.
  
• Equality for all citizens, civil rights, and social justice.
  
• Investing in America

Where can we find these tenants of progressivism besides your ass for whatever suits you for the moment? The rich get richer while the middleclass suffers under leftist policies. There's nothing liberal or progressive about it. Leftists lie about everything, especially who they are.

The reason for the income disparity is that marriage with government benefits the corporations, the more regulations the merrier. The more tax breaks the merrier. Grants, loans, GM anybody? etc. Small business can't compete. They suffer or struggle to survive. There goes the jobs or pay.

The living wage is meaningless. No starting employee is entitled to earn enough to buy cars, homes and raise a family. It's thoughtless emotional appeal, like cries of racism, sexism, homophobia, greed, etc. All designed to ram their leftist big governement socialist worldview down our throats.

You're for the environment? Really? Wow. I guess the rest of us want to live in a toxic wasteland. Thanks for proving how stupid liberals are.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

 

[Votto]

From near as I can tell, there are 4 pillars of Progressivism which is their foundation. All four of these pillars is an assault on the Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution is a document that attempted to create a government that is limited. In other words, those in government are viewed as not having any superior intellectual capacity or righteous character than the average citizen. Such outrageous thinking must be destroyed so that every aspect in our lives is overseen and regulated by government who are the master race. Why without Big Brother monitoring our every move, we would all be dying in the streets as we render the planet inhabitable environmentally.

1. Illegal Immigration. Illegal immigration is the first pillar. It carries with it the notion that borders are not needed. We hear many Progs today say as much. So if there are no borders, then there are no sovereign nations. If there are no sovereign nations, then the Republic becomes obsolete, along with its documents such as the Constitution. Then an all powerful world government can be set up with a more "enlightened" Constitution that will be offered.

2. Massive debt. Massive debt will eventually destroy the Republic. It is not a matter of if, but when. No nation can continue trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. How they got this far is nothing short of a miracle. And as the Republic folds, again, so do it's documents.

3. Assault on Christianity. Many think that morality and government are separate, but in reality, all laws represent a moral code. Moreover, only a moral society can be trusted with freedom. As Ben Franklin once said, "In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think that a General government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as toned despotic government, being incapable of any other." If society loses its moral soul and becomes a nation of convicts, then a warden is required to maintain order. Ripping morality out of schools and the rest of society is key to their cause. It's like I've always said, prison is a Prog utopia. Everyone has equal housing, dress, food, education, and health care and all of it is free. Not only that, these are "gun free zones" and every day is a gay pride day.

4. Centralized all powerful government. The last pillar upon which Progressivism rests is an all powerful centralized government. The only time this is not embraced is when it infringes upon one of the other pillars. For you see Progs today run around chanting state rights when it comes to illegal drug legalization or moving illegals around from sanctuary city to sanctuary city. For example, refeer use is a federal crime, as is illegal immigration. Progs are simply openly defying these rules of law as states like Colorado legalize the use of reefer or cities openly declare themselves a refuge for illegals. However, when it comes to any other issue, state rights go bye, bye. Instead, with Obama in office writing EO's that violate federal law on such things as immigration, then all of a sudden the federal government becomes the ultimate authority again. Then when states like Arizona try and stand up to enforce immigration laws on the books, they get sued by Obama and company and forced to comply with the law,. We have now become a nation of men, not laws, which further degrades the Constitution as a meaningless document to be reinterpreted awayor simply ignored by Progs to the point where no one even refers to it anymore.

Dear Votto Thanks for this breakdown

On another thread you adeptly pointed out that someone blaming Christianity and religion was making an overly broad generalization, which only addressed abuses and precluded the positive meaning message and application of such systems.

Well the same can be said of both attacks on the left and the right. There is a right way to pursue those political beliefs that IS Constitutional and Wrong ways that are Unconstitutional.

You have clearly listed the wrong ways which I agree undermine Constitutional ethics and enforcement .

Let me also list the Right ways to pursue and fulfill Progressive goals:

1. First Inclusion of Diversity should mean Political beliefs as well as religious beliefs equally protected by Constitutional laws. NOT discrimination by creed as currently practiced not only by the Party politics, not only in govt in both legal and legislative actions, but seen in the media and with public officials such as Obama who abused both public office and media to preach and enforce punishment against citizens for having opposing beliefs . I agree this discrimination has to stop. The difference in my argument, I'm saying inclusion is in keeping with progressive ideals and that this discrimination by creed violates progressive ideals and principles. So the problem is the party leaders and agenda are not following or fulfilling the very principles of inclusion that we fight for.

2. Equality through ownership not through dependence on govt . here you will see a split between the true progressive greens who push for worker owned cooperatives vs elitist Democrats who preach depending on govt for social programs which enslaves voters workers and taxpayers to systems we don't control ourselves. I'm arguing the true progressives push for worker owned coops, including independent currency and health care cooperatives that liberate workers and whole communities by teaching self reliance and independence from govt bureaucracy. Surprisingly enough, I even found progressive socialists arguing for ownership to shift back to workers and away from corporations and govt that are monolozing control. So there is more common ground between socialists and capitalists arguing for people to own their own production and businesses and reduce govt.

3. Education and training to achieve this liberation. This includes Constituonal education as well as business and mgmt training to move people from stages of dependence to becoming self governing and self managing not only in businesses, but in schools, in health care, and running local govt and even prisons by democratic participation instead of corporate controlled bureaucracies monopolizing govt contracts and dumping debts on taxpayers with no representation or accountability.
To achieve this conversion means taking back public schools public housing prisons health care and immigration detention, and transferring ownership back to districts to manage through schools that can keep track of which people need what level of support and training to become independent so this is managed by sponsors and mentors who voluntarily select and work with applicants.
This way, we can convert the state spending on crime prisons and immigration into jobs in education, policing, and health care instead of charging taxpayers more money .
The 4-5 areas I would focus education on to achieve liberation and equal empowerment are :
1. Spiritual education on the factor of forgiveness in healing physical and social ills, to reduce costs of health care, wipe out criminal illness abuse and addictions that can be proven medically to be cured by spiritual healing therapy, and invest in medical and social services that break the cycle of poverty and crime so we do have enough resources to pay for sustainable health care including support for the truly disabled by creating jobs for medical interns while they work for their education.
2. Legal govt and Constitutional education and training in self govt. Including training and assistance in conflict resolution, mediation and consensus, mgmt of diversity in religious and political groups, and administrative assistance to turn restitution for crimes and corruption costing taxpayers huge debts into microlending and financing to cover costs of reforms and sustainable development that will save taxpayer money in the future ( such as converting prisons and sweatshops into work study programs and health care clinics to provide social services as part of educational job training for workers and students, where inmates and immigrants earn their credits and status and there is no free ride off other taxpayers , but contributions by sponsors and donors are voluntary)
3. Business property and financial management.
4. Media including radio internet and music and movie production . both for economic empowerment and self- representation so there is check on media directly.
5. Science and technology. Especially converting current systems of energy transportation and housing into more cost effective sustainable means, but by local ownership not corporate dictactorship to monopolize the rules as is happening now with the global warming issues.

4. A system of redressing grievances to convert public debts and damages from corporate and govt abuses into microlending and financing these reforms and build sustainable community programs and development based on local self govt.

This will create jobs in reforms where people can receive mentorship and training in Constitutional govt management.
We can start with the border, putting Democrats in charge of reforming prisons and health care, Republicans with the VA and military bases and hospitals across the border, and Greens with converting sweatshops and labor pools into sustainable worker owned production facilities and schools. The Libertarians can be in charge of the Constitutional convention to create a grievances process for turning restitution for crimes into capital credits to invest in these reforms . all parties would have full time jobs and means of training future candidates for govt jobs running things the right way.

Www.earnedamnesty.com
Www.ethics-commission.net
Www.spiritual I healing.us

WTH is equality exactly? How about giving people their freedom and let them live their lives the best they can and butt the hell out?

Progs love the term equality. Do you know why? It's because equality does not exist. How can you make a stupid person and a brilliant person equal? How do you make a man and a woman equal? How do you make the poor and rich equal? You can't, that's how. However, Progs love the concept because the term equality sounds so righteous. Why everyone and everything should be equal, right? So Progs use this term for their own demagoguery because they know that it will never go out of style because it is not achievable. This means that they will simply grow government indefinitely to try and "fix" something that has no solution.

Of course, they are not really interested in a solution, they are merely using equality as a tool to achieve their own respective agendas.

As for the rest of it, I'm not so much interested in a one solution fits all anymore. I think states should regain their power and implement their own solutions, much like Romney did with Romneycare. That way we have 50 different examples of what works and what does not. This is a much better approach than someone sitting in the Oval Office deciding such things like how your child should be taught in kindergarten. The whole centralized top down governing by a hand full of people is absurd. It's like my daddy always said, none of us are as smart as all of us. This was the original intent of the Founding Fathers, to have states decide and include everyone in the country on these types of decisions.

I seriously hope you look into the Article V movement. States need to regain what they have lost and those in the Federal government need to stop pretending that one size really fits all and that they have the one solution for everyone. Such fantasy is why Dims are always sold as so much more intellectually gifted as their opponents. Also notice that in tyrannical regimes, like the former USSR, China, and even Venezuela, their leaders are often embalmed and put on display. It coincides with the premise that the leaders of these regimes are all knowing and have the perfect solution to all of our problems. Then when they die how do we all go on living? Easy, they just put them under glass and preserve them like an eternal deity that will still look after them when the die.

What I'm most sick of though is having half of America wish to secede from the Union every Presidential election. Liberal states and Conservative states should be able to run their own affairs, instead of one trying to impose their will on the other.

How about you? Do you want continued division or just let people live their lives how they see fit?

As it stands now, the US Congress has not had an approval rating above 20% for some time now. Many can't even attend a Presidential nomination for another party, let alone work together. Now instead of discussing issues and compromising they just shut government down to get their own way. The Prog centralized system is in shambles and has failed us.

Dear Votto
I'm NOT talking about making people the same because I agree that's not possible.

People are NOT going to have the same educational and skills levels, and NOT going to be on the same level where some are renters who don't WANT to deal with management and others are owners and managers, and yet others are training other people to build and run their own programs. There are at least 4-5 levels of development, and NO people are NOT going to have the same responsibilities and abilities to participate in the decision making process.

That's NOT what I mean.

I mean equal respect, equal inclusion and right to consent within the bounds of ownership.

(so if someone is renting or under the sponsorship of other people, there ARE certain things they DON'T OWN or control or have say in, compared with property owners or people funding programs who HAVE more responsibility and thus have more decision making ability than those who are just participants but not owners in charge.)

What I mean by equal rights and protections, given that people are not of equal status: if you look at the set up at academic institutions as an example:
* the undergrad students
* the grad students
* the professors
* the staff
* the admin
* the school board
* the trustees/owners
All have different roles, rules and limits to their decision making ability. But in general, they are
all respectively still protected from abuses and have
rights to pursue grievances and also to have reports
or charges brought against them if they violate rules.

The rules for professors are different from students,
so these are not equal in terms of being "the same."

What I propose to manage the diversity in development and need for support among citizens
and the taxpaying populations is to manage the programs similar to a university.

So for example, what if the Democrats are in charge of managing taxes and programs for citizens who are in the STUDENT mode of depending on other people to manage educational programs for them, while they train for jobs, receive education, and work internships where they earn their course credits and scholarships for school by public service in health care, in social work, or other "social programs" (instead of these being funded as govt welfare).

What if Republicans are in charge of managing programs where the business owners and leaders receive tax breaks and credits for investing in building production facilities, campuses, teaching hospitals, etc. And providing LOANS instead of paying taxes to develop SELF-SUSTAINING social programs designed NOT to depend on govt.

Why can't this be developed by free enterprise?
And only rely on govt in cases of RESTITUTION
for crime, corruption or other violations that require
penalties to be paid into corrections and solutions.

but if no crime is involved, these programs can be
built by freely donating, lending, or investing capital
and give lenders a tax break for doing this work themselves. not only investing in building, but TRAINING and MENTORING business owners, administrators, teachers, medical professionals, etc.
to run programs that the local districts own instead of
relying on govt to magically create health care and
pay for education, or create jobs for workers.

In order to organize resources, I am SUGGESTING to delegate the needs and demands of the workers and students to the Democratic leadership to organize representation by district and state,
and to delegate to the Republican leaders to organize the business leaders and corporate financiers. Of course there will be cross over,
but that's a shortcut to organizing these CLASSES of people -- the populations DEPENDENT on govt and other people to manage and develop programs for them and the people who are able to manage
independently of govt and MENTOR others to become self-governing and self-sufficient.

Isn't that a more realistic way of handling the diverse classes and demands of our populations?

We don't need the whole govt run like a sixth grade class where everyone is spoon fed, when there are post-doctoral fellows in the class who can run their own school or even teach people to build their own universities.

So why not organize by development level, and then structure the taxes where they match the level at which people choose to contribute based on their skill level and ability to produce and invest capital.

I think your attempt to find a way for universities to stop being dependent upon government hand outs is admirable, but is it doable?

You must take a step back and see what you are up against. Public education, as well as universities around the country, are left leaning. They are 100% dependent upon government welfare. Not only that, as the economy declines everyone is suffering.....except for those at the university level. For you see, the government just took over the student loan program so that they can lower the interest rates so that students can still afford the tuition rates than rise every year and go higher, and higher and higher. That way Universities don't have to ever take a pay cut as students enslave themselves to decades more of paying off student loans.

Put another way, who has more money to dole out than the government that can just print it in the basement of the Fed. How can you compete with that monster?

Education and government have a symbiotic relationship. Government continues their flow of money to them and in return universities indoctrinate students to be left leaning big government types who will just continue to feed the current system. In the end, everyone is happy except for the aging student who is drowning in debt. Incidentally, the government has made student debt the absolute worse debt to have thanks to draconian laws that make it impossible for people to ever escape. For example, my mother died over 10 years ago with student debt and I still get calls from collectors. I tried reasoning with them in the past telling them she is dead but now I just hang up on them.

 

[SeaGal]

Folks you have now seen the 5th liberal pillar!
Deny and derail.

Actually that's from the handbook - The Three 'D's of Liberal Warfare Arts...Deflect, Deny, Derail.

The progressive movement is based on an older failed form of social/economic/government order. The bait looks like humanitarian/forward thinking advocacy, after all who wouldn't want to be a forward thinking humanitarian!? - but the reality is much the opposite as 'humanitarian' principles devolve into 'what's good for thee is not good for me' while the all powerful centralized government dispensing 'social' justice inevitably devolves into tyranny.

 

[Votto]

You're a great propagandist, but the fact is that the tenets of progressivism are what Progressives, not their opponents, say they are. What do Progressives say are their main tenets?

• The distrust of concentrated wealth and power in the hands of corporate oligarchy or aristocracy.
  
• Strong proponents of workplace regulations and the living wage.
  
• Environmental stewardship.
  
• Equality for all citizens, civil rights, and social justice.
  
• Investing in America

While one may think what one wants and what one can soundly advance, one is minimally obliged to at least accurately and with integrity identify what hell Progressives main "pillars" are.


The past does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
-- Samuel Langhorne Clemens


Progressivism was the reform movement that ran from the late 19th century through the first decades of the 20th century, during which leading intellectuals and social reformers in the United States sought to address the economic, political, and cultural questions that had arisen in the context of the rapid changes brought with the Industrial Revolution and the growth of modern capitalism in America. Rigorous and casual comparisons of today and the Gilded Age reveals extensive similarities, and as religious fundamentalism further insinuates itself into the fabric of our society, today's cultural mores become increasingly Victorian. Political verisimilitude exists between the two eras. Looking at the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, in the Gilded Age, one observes the following:

• Party differences blur during this period with loyalties determined by region, religious, and ethnic differences.
• Voter turnout for presidential elections averaged over 78 percent of eligible voters; 60 to 80 percent in non-presidential years.
• Both parties were pro-business.
• Both parties were opposed to any type of economic radicalism or reform.
• Both parties advocated a "sound currency" and supported the status quo in the existing financial system.
• Federal government and, to some extent, state governments tended to do very little.
• Republicans dominate the Senate; Democrats dominate the House of Representatives.
• Republican Party splinter groups during this period: Stalwarts, Halfbreeds, Mugwumps.

Consideration of the short-lived Populist Party finds one discovering it:

• Formed in 1891 by remnants of the Farmers' Alliances.
• Big government party with a healthy list of demands that included:
  • free coinage of silver,
  • government ownership of the railroads, telegraphs, and telephone lines,
  • graduated income tax,
  • direct election of U. S. senators,
  • the use of initiative, referendum, and recall
• The party eventually fades because farmers' situation improved in the late 1890s and because their political agenda was assumed by the major parties.

Progressive reform policies from 1900-1920 are what ushered in the end of the Gilded Age's money-moved political corruption and control at the hands of a very few (comparatively), very rich (even by today's measures and using inflation unadjusted figures) individuals. One can cotton or not to that pattern of events, but one cannot deny is that Progressivism is what led to the growth and subsequent mid-20th century dominance of the middle class. But for those policies and related legislation and regulation, "regular" people would have continued to toil for "God only knows how long" in squalid conditions for low wages and at the mercy of the Robber Barons. [1] Thus, though one can freely deride today's political progressives, if history provides any guidance, one thing it tells us is that progressive policies did more for the middle class than did Republican or Democratic ones.

Accordingly it seems to me, based on the rancorous rabble rousings observed at Trump rallies, and incessant prattling about "this or that" being amiss here on USMB, Progressivism is in fact what people most want are progressive policies; however, by some strange set of machinations, the GOP leadership have convinced a ton of folks that they do not. What is there to say about that? Perhaps most GOP members aren't good students of American history. I bid you take a moment and consider the Gilded Age and Progressive Era and see if you don't agree something akin to Progressive Era reforms -- economically more laissez fair and less socially intrusive, but no less effective at ridding the nation of the corrupting ills that have beset it -- are again needed today.

• Are we living in the Second Gilded Age? - BBC News
  
• 8 Ways America's Headed Back to the Robber-Baron Era
  
• Connections: Second Coming of the Gilded Age |
  
• America’s Gilded Age: ‘A Tale of Today’ - NationofChange | Progressive Change Through Positive Action
• The Gilded Age, Then and Now
  
• Are We Living in A Second Gilded Age? Part 1 | In The Past Lane
  
• For folks seeking a refresher on the Gilded Age and Progressive Era that followed it. The last three documents are somewhat specialized, but they offer a variety of views into how the politics and culture of the respective periods percolated their way to the outcomes that are thus analyzed. In so doing, they add excellent perspective to the task of comparing and contrasting our times with those of the Gilded Age, along with doing so for approaches to ameliorating todays excesses and inefficiencies.
  • The Gilded Age | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
  • The Gilded Age vs. The Progressive Era
    
  • Industrialization, Urbanization, and Immigration in the Gilded Age
  • The Progressive Era
  • The Square Deal: Theodore Roosevelt and the Themes of Progressive Reform
  • Urbanization -- This is a series of excellent and short high school level essays that provide useful insights into the Gilded Age's dominant cultural, political and economic themes and their impacts and correlations.
  • The Determinants of Progressive Era Reform: The Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 -- An especially interesting essay that "examine three theories of Progressive Era regulation: public interest, industry capture, and information manipulation by the federal bureaucracy and muckraking press."
  • Abolition and Reinstatement of Capital Punishment During the Progressive Era and Early 20th Century -- Another excellent essay that examines the nature of Progressive Era reforms as they derived from and applied to a specific context: law and order.

Additional references:

• What Is Progressivism?
  
• Progressivism
  
• Progressivism, Schools and Schools of Education: An American Romance

Note:

1. It is well worth nothing that for all the progressive reforms for which the overwhelming majority of society yearned and received, the wealth, positions and lifestyle of the "Baronial" classes remained about as grand it was prior to the reforms. I point that out because short of something analogous in nature and scope to the Bolshevik Revolution -- itself a manifestation of how proportionally more "pissed off" and, previous to it, politically mute were members of the Russian under and working classes than were their American equivalents -- well off "Establishment" individuals are going to be just fine, even if they opt to leave the country to do so.
   
   "Common" people who are uncommonly ignorant may briefly think that's just fine, but they won't feel that way if rich people, en masse, take their wealth with them. Trust me, there are lots of places that are more than willing to welcome material quantities of sufficiently rich people, so much so that those places will modify their policies to encourage as much to happen.

Don't get me wrong, there are perks to Progressivism, just like there were economic perks under Hitler. Hitler swept into power and centralized power. Red flag. He then proceeded to jump start the economy and provide the people jobs and fostered a massive nanny state. Hitler then imposed a massive tax on the top 4% income earners. Red flag. He was also a rabid environmentalist and animal rights advocate. Red flag. All the money collected in his centralized government went to two things, the massive nanny state and the military. More red flags. Of course, all that money was simply not enough, so he simply printed money to the point that people were becoming concerned with all the spending. Hitler then forbad the government in the 1930's from passing a budget of any kind so as not to arouse more concern. Now the red flag is in flames. Hitler focused on the nanny state, not because he cared about the people, but because he learned about the lessons from WW1 where the people rose up because of a deteriorating standard of living during the war, which is something he was terrified of. In fact, the German people had a higher standard of living during the war than did their opponents. You might say that Hitler simply bought off a war weary populace steeped in genocide. The chilling part is exactly how well it worked.
It is argued that Hitler essentially burned all of his bridges economically. It was either world conquest or economic catastrophe.

To this point this sounds like a carbon copy of the Progressive movement, does it not? Today the US has a massive centralized system that places all of its money in the nanny state and the military. Additionally, the US has troops in over 70 countries around the world, something Hitler never even came close to achieving. Citizens in the US are also war weary as was the German people under Hitler. Today Congress does not seem to like to pass a budget as well, or if they do, they continually have to raise the debt ceiling to do it. So at what point does the system go belly up? Is it $30 trillion, $50 trillion, $100 trillion? To be honest, I have no idea. I'm not an economist and to me it is all voodoo economics. Are they burning or have the burned all of our bridges as well? What is the end game here? Is it to simply live beyond our means with trillion dollar deficits every year and continued war across the globe, only, we don't declare war anymore?

So how did we get here? Thanks to men like President Wilson and FDR, America was centralized and turned into a war machine. They did it to fight the centralized war machines in Europe. They saw that creating a centralized government was conducive to becoming a cash cow that can produce world conquering armies. I'm reminded of an old saying though, be wary of becoming what you are fighting. Centralized all powerful, cash rich, regimes don't have a good track record historically.

Of course, the Nazi regime conducted a brutal genocide. But essentially,. it was a money making scheme. As all good Progs, know, you go where the money is cuz you have created a centralized cash cow to feed. Jews had a higher standard of living, much like they enjoy today in the US. For whatever reason, they seem to always rise to the top of the economic stratus. Of course, this is partly why there was so much Jew hatred in Europe over the centuries. You might say that the Holocaust was simply a natural climax because all the suffering Jews endured in Europe was simply mimicked by the Nazi regime. There was very little originality if you study the Jewish persecution there. So they simply took their gold, because they coveted their wealth, and sent them off to die. It was a win/win.

So I know what your thinking. How does the Jewish persecution have anything to do with what is going on today in the world of Progressivism? Well consider this, we have gays in San Fran protesting against the Zionist state of Israel. Why, especially when Islam would just as soon kill them all? Then look at this clip of Occupy Wall Street as protesters hold up sings saying things like "Go home Jewish bankers"



Now do I think that what happened to the Jews in Europe will be duplicated by Progs in the US? I hope not, but I do see the efforts to undermine the Zionist nation in Israel which would ultimately result in another Jewish Holocaust.

Moreover, some would say that abortion is a genocide. If so, then if we compare Hitler killing 6 million Jews to Progs killing well over 50 million babies, then the haunting realities of an all powerful centralized government has realized itself again. In addition, most have abortions based upon economic concerns. Is this really much different than picking on a minority in Germany for financial gain, especially when they are unable to fight back? Are Jews human or vermin? Is the unborn human or just a parasite?

Now I realize that by this point your eyes have glazed over and you have essentially written me off as a right wing nut. So be it. But just be reminded of the quote you gave me.

The past does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
-- Samuel Langhorne Clemens

There is truly nothing new under the sun. All they do is repackage it with a different color wrapping paper.

So this warning is for America, be wary of voting for your pocket book. The love of money is truly the root of all evil.

 

[SeaGal]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK was a liberal hero then and is a hero now

Liberals have no problem with having a strong military but recognize there needs to be a balance between our investment in the military and our social programs.....JFKs agenda had a strong social base

JFK cut WWII era taxes down into the 70% upper tax rate. Todays liberals would be happy with that tax rate....would you?

 

[Redfish]

Still wrong. Obama couldn't do nearly what he wanted even with a Dem congress because he was limited by the constitution.

Where did conservatives go when they thought they could get Obamacare declared unconstitutional?

Did they go to the states and say, just nullify the federal law?

Or did they go to the supreme federal government to try to use its supreme authority?

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

the SC ruled it constitutional. they have the final say on such things. so at the moment it is constitutional by definition. However, as I said, that is being fixed.

Providing for the General welfare, not the Common welfare, is in our Constitution, right wingers.

actually the word is "promote" the general welfare, not "provide". Big difference.

 

[Redfish]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where did conservatives go when they thought they could get Obamacare declared unconstitutional?

Did they go to the states and say, just nullify the federal law?

Or did they go to the supreme federal government to try to use its supreme authority?

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

the SC ruled it constitutional. they have the final say on such things. so at the moment it is constitutional by definition. However, as I said, that is being fixed.

Providing for the General welfare, not the Common welfare, is in our Constitution, right wingers.

actually the word is "promote" the general welfare, not "provide". Big difference.

Please stop.

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

 

[Redfish]

Still wrong. Obama couldn't do nearly what he wanted even with a Dem congress because he was limited by the constitution.

Where did conservatives go when they thought they could get Obamacare declared unconstitutional?

Did they go to the states and say, just nullify the federal law?

Or did they go to the supreme federal government to try to use its supreme authority?

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

Obamacare is a tax, taxation without representation…

Your representatives passed that tax. How can it be without representation?

passed by democrats only with no floor debate in either house and with no amendments allowed to be brought to the floor. It was not passed, it was rammed up our collective asses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would oppose Medicaid, Medicare, SS?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where did conservatives go when they thought they could get Obamacare declared unconstitutional?

Did they go to the states and say, just nullify the federal law?

Or did they go to the supreme federal government to try to use its supreme authority?

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

Obamacare is a tax, taxation without representation…

Your representatives passed that tax. How can it be without representation?

passed by democrats only with no floor debate in either house and with no amendments allowed to be brought to the floor. It was not passed, it was rammed up our collective asses.

Yeah well, like no vote on Garland, or the filibuster of the background check bill that 90% of Americans supported,

sometimes the bear gets you.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Equality is the best foundation for a civilized society.

Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?

If the former, you are not a liberal, you are a leftist. If the latter, yes, you are indeed a liberal.

Hyped-Up Hypocrisy

Conservatives want a society based on birth, not worth. Cut off your sons and daughters at age 18 and make them work their way through college, just like you tell us to, or you have nothing to say to the 99%.

Wow are you off base. This libertarian places no value on birth. For that matter, neither do any conservatives I've met..

I left home a few days before my 18th birthday. Cut off and working my way through college. .

A Pulpit Is for Bullies

Terminal America is controlled by unearned birth privileges and, in your case, brownnosing. Not brains, who should be recruited and offered more than they can expect to make anywhere else from the ages of 18 to 22. If college students aren't paid a salary, they aren't worth anything. They have no self-respect, conforming to rules set by those who demand they humiliate themselves in order to make the rich richer.

Hypocritical Libretardians believe in the privilege of the rich to give their brats an adult allowance and paid-up tuition. So you class-climbers are scabs who force everyone else to "work their way through college," which implies that college isn't work and that students shouldn't be paid. You want us to feel sorry for your sacrifice, which has no merit and nothing to do with qualifying you for a job. Yet the plutocratic "Atlases" who mandate this indentured servitude don't practice what they preach.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where did conservatives go when they thought they could get Obamacare declared unconstitutional?

Did they go to the states and say, just nullify the federal law?

Or did they go to the supreme federal government to try to use its supreme authority?

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

Obamacare is a tax, taxation without representation…

Your representatives passed that tax. How can it be without representation?

passed by democrats only with no floor debate in either house and with no amendments allowed to be brought to the floor. It was not passed, it was rammed up our collective asses.

Where in the Constitutioin does it forbid the majority party from passing a bill without support from the minority party?

Cite that article.

 

[Redfish]

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

the SC ruled it constitutional. they have the final say on such things. so at the moment it is constitutional by definition. However, as I said, that is being fixed.

Providing for the General welfare, not the Common welfare, is in our Constitution, right wingers.

actually the word is "promote" the general welfare, not "provide". Big difference.

Please stop.

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

read the preamble and get back to me,

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

 

[Redfish]

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

Obamacare is a tax, taxation without representation…

Your representatives passed that tax. How can it be without representation?

passed by democrats only with no floor debate in either house and with no amendments allowed to be brought to the floor. It was not passed, it was rammed up our collective asses.

Where in the Constitutioin does it forbid the majority party from passing a bill without support from the minority party?

Cite that article.

it doesn't. Just pointing out the corrupt partisan way that ACA was passed.

 

[rightwinger]

Where did conservatives go when they thought they could get Obamacare declared unconstitutional?

Did they go to the states and say, just nullify the federal law?

Or did they go to the supreme federal government to try to use its supreme authority?

ACA was, and is, unconstitutional. The SC got it wrong. But fear not, that is being fixed.

Ok, so if it was unconstitutional why is it still in force?

the SC ruled it constitutional. they have the final say on such things. so at the moment it is constitutional by definition. However, as I said, that is being fixed.

Providing for the General welfare, not the Common welfare, is in our Constitution, right wingers.

actually the word is "promote" the general welfare, not "provide". Big difference.

Actually, the Constitution uses both words

 

[rightwinger]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

 

[Redfish]

JFK said it best......

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

JFK said many things...not all of them would be acceptable to todays version of liberalism.

'It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war'.

'Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'

'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.'
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

...and, "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

JFK would be a pariah among the current Democrat party leadership - far too moderate.

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would oppose Medicaid, Medicare, SS?

republicans today don't oppose Medicaid, medicare and SS. WTF is wrong with you?