What is a "Progressive"?

[norwegen]

The Founding Fathers implemented the "great experiment" with We the People governing ourselves. There is no way you can spin that as anything but progressive.

A self-governing nation is a sovereign nation. Progressivism is democracy, which is a form of government that eighteenth century Americans did not want.

democracy - definition of democracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk′rə-s&#275
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

de•moc•ra•cy (dɪˈmɒk rə si)

n., pl. -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people, esp. with respect to their political power.

democracy
a form of government in which sovereign power resides in the people and is exercised by them or by officers they elect to represent them. Cf. republicanism. — democrat, n. — democratic, adj.

Please explain exactly how this nation does not embrace democracy?

I didn't say it doesn't. I said it didn't.

You progressives have changed it.

 

[The T]

And then they can explain WHY they wish to destroy their own liberty.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Liberals, Progressives if you will, drive history. We make the changes in our American society that are responsible for American progress.

Think about it. Each and every time we change for the better, it is due to Liberals and Liberal policy. Who provided the resistance to change? Conservatives. Did Conservatives rally in support of child labor laws? How about Civil Rights? The movement to save our ecology? Worker place safety issues? Worker's rights? Women's rights? Marriage equality? The end of Jim Crow and before that slavery? All these changes are part and parcel of Liberal ideology. No Conservative lifted as finger to make these necessary changes. In fact, they resisted these changes and made what should have been common sense reform into a struggle for fairness and equality.

Name the Conservative who ever did anything to further the aspirations of equal treatment under the law and egalitarianism.

Going to require some examples.
You are confusing classic liberalism( based on liberty and freedom of the individual) and modern day liberalism.
Liberalism of today is associated with big government, deficit spending, high taxes , welfare statism and central planning..
"For the common good".
Today's liberal eschews the notion that the individual is in charge of and should be trusted with his own destiny. Liberalism of today is collectivism. It labels people and places them into groups. Then pits those groups against one another in the interest of gaining and maintaining political power.
Liberals of today are elitists.

 

[The T]

Government produced the vision, the incentive and the funding to put a man on the moon. If was left up to the private sector you would still be using a landline phone and the postal service.

Bullshit

Virgin Galactic's Billionaire Founder Sir Richard Branson Takes Zero-G Flight


Branson has said he and his family will be aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo when the vehicle makes its first commercial suborbital spaceflight later this year."

.

The government put a man on the moon in 1969.

The private sector is only about to achieve "suborbital spaceflight" 45 years later?

AND they couldn't have done it WITHOUT WHAT?

YOU just can't understand this, can you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, by your thinking, the founding fathers didn't believe in individual freedom despite the fact that the documents they wrote guaranteed our freedoms?

Are you crazy?

They may not have been conservatives with sticks up their butts, but they were not Anti-American Progressives

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

HOW many Colonies REFUSED to sign on UNLESS those Amendments were included? And WHY? And WHY do Progressive WORK by process of LAW(s) to lessen their impact in FAVOR of power of Imperial Government? And further? WHY do YOU support it?

Could not make any sense of what you are trying to say.

 

[The T]

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

HOW many Colonies REFUSED to sign on UNLESS those Amendments were included? And WHY? And WHY do Progressive WORK by process of LAW(s) to lessen their impact in FAVOR of power of Imperial Government? And further? WHY do YOU support it?

Could not make any sense of what you are trying to say.

TRUTH has that effect/affect on Progressives such as YOU. Colour me shocked...*NOT*

 

[Derideo_Te]

A self-governing nation is a sovereign nation. Progressivism is democracy, which is a form of government that eighteenth century Americans did not want.

And WE the people ARE our OWN sovereigns. Progressives cannot tolerate that either. It demeans their POWER over us.

Liberals and Democrats seem to have this mistaken idea that a government of, for, and by the people is a democracy, yet the founders relegated democracy to the lower house and nowhere else. The founders were wise enough to know that when passions govern a society, the society becomes factionalized.

Are you making an excuse for the Tea Party faction's passionate obstruction in the House? Care to explain the same obstruction in the Senate that has been there since 2009?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

and then....., KaPow.., KaPow.., KaPow..,

in reality he had some very Conservative ideas and ideals.., but !!! LBJ had him put down to keep the demoncRAT party full hard line liberal

Unworthy of response

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country"..
Strong conservative message right there.

 

[The T]

And WE the people ARE our OWN sovereigns. Progressives cannot tolerate that either. It demeans their POWER over us.

Liberals and Democrats seem to have this mistaken idea that a government of, for, and by the people is a democracy, yet the founders relegated democracy to the lower house and nowhere else. The founders were wise enough to know that when passions govern a society, the society becomes factionalized.

Are you making an excuse for the Tea Party faction's passionate obstruction in the House? Care to explain the same obstruction in the Senate that has been there since 2009?

As a matter of course they ARE obstructing...THUS protecting even your rights. But YOU are partisan and NOT expected to see it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh, goody. Two examples. That advances are typically made in the private sector means that Progress doesn't depend on government.

Want to go back to the canals that were government funded and began the original interstate commerce? How about the government funding the post WW2 housing boom? Plenty of examples out there if you care to learn a little history.

WE do know history...and ALL YOU cite illustrates WHY Government has NO BUSINESS in the affairs of people's private lives, and their RESPONSIBILITIES to themselves and their families.

THINK CONTROL. Can you?

Facts not in evidence!

 

[The T]

and then....., KaPow.., KaPow.., KaPow..,

in reality he had some very Conservative ideas and ideals.., but !!! LBJ had him put down to keep the demoncRAT party full hard line liberal

Unworthy of response

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country"..
Strong conservative message right there.

In today's vernacular? Kennedy would be pummeled as a loon by his own party....

 

[Derideo_Te]

ONE aspect YOU forget...They recognized GOD was in charge...Progressives LOATHE the idea for it's one place they cannot control.

FAIL AGAIN

Please quote the exact terminology in the Constitution where it says that "GOD was in charge"? In fact why don't you provide a link to a single mention of God anywhere in the Constitution? And while you are about it you can also explain why the 1st Amendment gives everyone freedom "from" religion if they so choose.

START with the DECLARATION...and go from there. YOU do KNOW that The Constitution CODIFIED the Declaration, do you not?

As a matter of course? NO, you don't.

The Declaration is NOT the Law of the Land. You have failed to substantiate your allegation and thereby conceded the position that "GOD was in charge".

 

[The T]

Want to go back to the canals that were government funded and began the original interstate commerce? How about the government funding the post WW2 housing boom? Plenty of examples out there if you care to learn a little history.

WE do know history...and ALL YOU cite illustrates WHY Government has NO BUSINESS in the affairs of people's private lives, and their RESPONSIBILITIES to themselves and their families.

THINK CONTROL. Can you?

Facts not in evidence!

START with OBAMACARE...THe PRIZE Progressives have wanted for 100 years...and go from there son. YOU are blind.

 

[norwegen]

And WE the people ARE our OWN sovereigns. Progressives cannot tolerate that either. It demeans their POWER over us.

Liberals and Democrats seem to have this mistaken idea that a government of, for, and by the people is a democracy, yet the founders relegated democracy to the lower house and nowhere else. The founders were wise enough to know that when passions govern a society, the society becomes factionalized.

Are you making an excuse for the Tea Party faction's passionate obstruction in the House? Care to explain the same obstruction in the Senate that has been there since 2009?

Try the DPRK, please.

Please.

 

[The T]

Please quote the exact terminology in the Constitution where it says that "GOD was in charge"? In fact why don't you provide a link to a single mention of God anywhere in the Constitution? And while you are about it you can also explain why the 1st Amendment gives everyone freedom "from" religion if they so choose.

START with the DECLARATION...and go from there. YOU do KNOW that The Constitution CODIFIED the Declaration, do you not?

As a matter of course? NO, you don't.

The Declaration is NOT the Law of the Land. You have failed to substantiate your allegation and thereby conceded the position that "GOD was in charge".

Never said it. YOU assigned that...and twisted my meaning and FACT. Typical scuzzy Progressive. YOU practice it well.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, by your thinking, the founding fathers didn't believe in individual freedom despite the fact that the documents they wrote guaranteed our freedoms?

Are you crazy?

They may not have been conservatives with sticks up their butts, but they were not Anti-American Progressives

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

You're a progressive; you don't know history, and you fault the Constitution, which in fact anticipates manumission because it discourages slavery with both the three-fifths clause (Article I, section 2) and with taxation (Article I, section 9).

And Madison allied with the Federalists in the 1780s, but affiliated with the Republicans in the 1790s because he did not approve of the monarchistic tendencies of Washington, Hamilton, and Adams. He was a small-government proponent, which almost all the founders were. A few of the framers shifted away from our revolutionary principles after the 1770s, but none of them - none - wanted a democratic government.

Your revisionist history does not jibe with the facts.

 

[The T]

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

You're a progressive; you don't know history, and you fault the Constitution, which in fact anticipates manumission because it discourages slavery with both the three-fifths clause (Article I, section 2) and with taxation (Article I, section 9).

And Madison allied with the Federalists in the 1780s, but affiliated with the Republicans in the 1790s because he did not approve of the monarchistic tendencies of Washington, Hamilton, and Adams. He was a small-government proponent, which almost all the founders were. A few of the framers shifted away from our revolutionary principles after the 1770s, but none of them - none - wanted a democratic government.

Your revisionist history does not jibe with the facts.

WHAT is revisionist of it? EXPLAIN IT.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A self-governing nation is a sovereign nation. Progressivism is democracy, which is a form of government that eighteenth century Americans did not want.

democracy - definition of democracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk′rə-s&#275
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

de•moc•ra•cy (dɪˈmɒk rə si)

n., pl. -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people, esp. with respect to their political power.

democracy
a form of government in which sovereign power resides in the people and is exercised by them or by officers they elect to represent them. Cf. republicanism. — democrat, n. — democratic, adj.

Please explain exactly how this nation does not embrace democracy?

I didn't say it doesn't. I said it didn't.

You progressives have changed it.

Semantic squirming.

 

[norwegen]

The original Constitution did not guarantee any freedoms. In fact it endorsed slavery. The BoR was a post facto AMENDMENT to the original Constitution largely inspired by the progressive Madison.

You're a progressive; you don't know history, and you fault the Constitution, which in fact anticipates manumission because it discourages slavery with both the three-fifths clause (Article I, section 2) and with taxation (Article I, section 9).

And Madison allied with the Federalists in the 1780s, but affiliated with the Republicans in the 1790s because he did not approve of the monarchistic tendencies of Washington, Hamilton, and Adams. He was a small-government proponent, which almost all the founders were. A few of the framers shifted away from our revolutionary principles after the 1770s, but none of them - none - wanted a democratic government.

Your revisionist history does not jibe with the facts.

So you'd rather say this than dispute them.

Please, the DPRK. It's got your name all over it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bullshit

Virgin Galactic's Billionaire Founder Sir Richard Branson Takes Zero-G Flight


Branson has said he and his family will be aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo when the vehicle makes its first commercial suborbital spaceflight later this year."

.

The government put a man on the moon in 1969.

The private sector is only about to achieve "suborbital spaceflight" 45 years later?

AND they couldn't have done it WITHOUT WHAT?

YOU just can't understand this, can you?

Ironic!