Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HandBall]

Thought I'd comment after being away for a while. I wonder how much anyone has thought beyond the next election?

In a sense I'm thankful for Obama. The drip-drip of Progressivism has taken its toll on America for a hundred years, changing education, history, values and beliefs in such a way that the very foundation of America has nearly crumbled. Even with McCain, that movement to the left was going to continue, and millions of Americans would have remained asleep to the 'fundamental transformation' of America long underway.

Obama has opened the floodgates on radical Socialism. His administration has taken corporate influence to new levels, and ethical behavior is unwelcome now anywhere in government. People are awake. Those who don't see that dangers of Progressivism today will likely never see it, or they've become so dependent on the system that they feel no choice but to continue to support it. But I'm warning you, that's a choice that will lead to the eventual ruin for every American and our progeny for decades and decades.

The question is whether enough people have been awakened to end this nightmare? Or should I say, end the nightmare of certain economic collapse? Returning sanity to Govt - and I will be the first to say that putting Republicans back into power is not the final answer - is but the first step in what's going to be a very painful series of steps if we are going to save America.  Are we up to the sacrifices that we must accept if we're to preserve a nation for out children and grandchildren? Are we prepared to abandon unsustainable bribes we call public pensions, social security, Medicare & Medicaid that are operating in the RED today? We won't have that answer after election day in November. That answer will come months and years later, when Americans will prove whether we're capable of saving ourselves, or whether we're destined to starve the nation to death with our self-interest. Can we put the futures of our children and grandchildren ahead of what we believe will be comfortable retirements?

WILL WE SUCK THE LIFE OUT OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO EXTEND THE FANTASY THAT WE CAN BE CARED FOR AFTER WE RETIRE FOR DECADES?

When I watched Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally I regained some hope. But what did I see but people arguing for cuts to spending and taxes. I didn't see people who necessarily understood the consequences in a society where government has addicted EVERYONE to some level of government largess.

Then I watched coverage of the One Nation Rally, with its Communists, unions and assorted leftists demanding 'well-paying jobs' despite the reality that poorly-educated Americans are neither worth well-paying jobs, or even capable of competing in the Global Economy against people who are better educated, aren't unionized, and work for a fraction of less-educated Americans.

November is not the end of this awakening. It's barely the beginning. If the GOP takes either House of Congress, they will not be in a position to do anything Obama refuses to sign. They won't have the votes to override vetoes. That means that Obama can govern by Executive Order and Congress won't even have the ability to stop him without enough Dems supporting to override presidential vetoes.

The only tool the GOP will have is to refuse to appropriate funds. With that will come threats of shutting down the Federal Government. And with that will come the calls upon the GOP to protect all those Americans dependent on a check from the government. Will the GOP be able to sustain such an effort? With Dems and MSM attacking them, it's unlikely. Where will Americans stand?

The real awakening will come when Americans fully understand the cost of saving America from a century of unsustainable redistribution of wealth and empty promises. If Americans are prepared to return to self-reliance once those costs are made clear, America may have a chance. If self-interest and refusal to drastically cut the size and scope of government is the response, then November will be little more than a blip on the path to fiscal collapse and something much, much darker to follow.

I hope we're still a people up to the greatness our Founders demonstrated when they invented America. Because if we're not, we have no more chances.

[Left Foot]

By all means, let's go back to 1900 - 1920. 12 year old kids working in sweat shops, women unable to vote, monopolists setting prices at will and not paying workers a decent wage, dangerous working conditions staring down the barrel of the great depression with no deposit insurance etc. etc. I'm thinking that the founding fathers had in mind a dynamic nation looking forward - Not a frickin' nation of folks always looking to the past or worse -- taking their ques from cynical muck-raking political entertainers just trying to make a buck. See the section on "breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative" below."

"So what the heck is "progressive"? Those called 'progressives' of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically. Later, leaders who followed the progressive line on foreign policy created an American nation that was an international leader in an economic, military, and moral sense.

Today, progressivism is not as easily definable as the ideas of the so-called Progressive Era of TR and Wilson.

The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention)."

http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/23706/?comments=view&cID=25252&pID=22606 Just the first link I found re so-called "progressivism".

[EWSoccer64]

Qhat utter pap.
You define your ideas under the "first link that that you find"?   Even for a liberal, that is weak thinking!

Come back and state your views, and then defend them.\ or not.
State your - or a rational - definition of "modern liberalism".   The last of the Clasical Liberals has said to be Ronald Reagan.  Certainly none of the modern Leftists fit that mold.
State your - or a rational - definition of a "modern Progressive".   Certainly none of the classical Progressives would recognize anyone who sports that label nowadays.

By all means, let's go back to 1900 - 1920. 12 year old kids working in sweat shops, women unable to vote, monopolists setting prices at will and not paying workers a decent wage, dangerous working conditions staring down the barrel of the great depression with no deposit insurance etc. etc. I'm thinking that the founding fathers had in mind a dynamic nation looking forward - Not a frickin' nation of folks always looking to the past or worse -- taking their ques from cynical muck-raking political entertainers just trying to make a buck. See the section on "breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative" below."

"So what the heck is "progressive"? Those called 'progressives' of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically. Later, leaders who followed the progressive line on foreign policy created an American nation that was an international leader in an economic, military, and moral sense.

Today, progressivism is not as easily definable as the ideas of the so-called Progressive Era of TR and Wilson.

The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention)."

http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/23706/?comments=view&cID=25252&pID=22606 Just the first link I found re so-called "progressivism".

[Left Foot]

Qhat utter pap.
You define your ideas under the "first link that that you find"?   Even for a liberal, that is weak thinking!

Come back and state your views, and then defend them.\ or not.
State your - or a rational - definition of "modern liberalism".   The last of the Clasical Liberals has said to be Ronald Reagan.  Certainly none of the modern Leftists fit that mold.
State your - or a rational - definition of a "modern Progressive".   Certainly none of the classical Progressives would recognize anyone who sports that label nowadays.

By all means, let's go back to 1900 - 1920. 12 year old kids working in sweat shops, women unable to vote, monopolists setting prices at will and not paying workers a decent wage, dangerous working conditions staring down the barrel of the great depression with no deposit insurance etc. etc. I'm thinking that the founding fathers had in mind a dynamic nation looking forward - Not a frickin' nation of folks always looking to the past or worse -- taking their ques from cynical muck-raking political entertainers just trying to make a buck. See the section on "breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative" below."

"So what the heck is "progressive"? Those called 'progressives' of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically. Later, leaders who followed the progressive line on foreign policy created an American nation that was an international leader in an economic, military, and moral sense.

Today, progressivism is not as easily definable as the ideas of the so-called Progressive Era of TR and Wilson.

The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention)."

http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/23706/?comments=view&cID=25252&pID=22606 Just the first link I found re so-called "progressivism".

Dude, that is one idea and definition of so-called progressivism. I Just shows how easy it is to flesh out the discussion posed by one of these posts filled with the gloom-and-doom black helicopter clap-trap.

Let's put it this way. I don't want to go back to the way it was 100 years ago. Do you? And arguments that hinge upon the whole, lets go back to the good old days consistently fail to state the bad part about the good old days.  Ask your wife if she likes this whole women votey thing. Or perhaps you really would like your kids to work in dangerous conditions at 12. I kind of like having my savings insured to and at least some orderly method of liquidating failed banks. And I'll have to say, I really liked that whole "Antitrust" thingy as well. Ask any of your african-american friends if they want to go back to the good old Jim Crow days.

Why does it bug you so much when someone suggests looking at issues from a non-partisan perspective? As I have stated before, the so-called left and the right have been largely co-opted by large corporations and monied interests. Only comprehensive campaign finance reform can really swing the policy making power a bit more toward the people.

Don't get so hung up on labels. Liberal - Conservative, Left - Right, Progressive - Reactionary blah, blah blah. How about getting out of Rush's and Olberman's little entertainment world and thinking for yourself. Or you can keep parroting the next big ratings-maker flash in the pan issue like the victory mosque or some such nonsense.

[yote19]

I finally figured out the difference between you and me lefty -- you have savings to secure... I don't.