[snowdog]

I been hearing that for the past couple of years, and I don't quite understand
the meaning of it pertaining to politics. I shudder to think a person is proud
of being a progressive because he/she supports Gay Marriage, is pro abortion,
denounces the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is it one of them beliefs that a
person thinks the Constitution is a document that can be changed year to year
to accomedate a group of peoples beliefs?

[Michael DeM]

Actually, it's the conservatives who believe that the Constitution can be changed to accomodate a group of people's beliefs. It seems that the only part of the Constitution that conservatives really like is the Second Amendment which doesn't really give everyone the right to bear arms.

Also, what's the problem with gay marriage? If you care so much about family values then why don't you ban divorce while you're at it? I bet a lot of people wouldn't like that, but at least the kids would grow up in a traditional family setting, right? And just because marriage has been defined a certain way doesn't mean it should stay that way. People who were against legalizing interracial marriages said that they didn't want to marriage redefined.

Nobody's pro-abortion. People are pro-choice, and they're going to stay pro-choice until you can give them undeniable proof that the fetus is a living, sentient human being.

Since that Dale guy never answered my question, I'm going to ask you: Why do you support the war in Iraq?

[gratelady1]

I been hearing that for the past couple of years, and I don't quite understand
the meaning of it pertaining to politics. I shudder to think a person is proud
of being a progressive because he/she supports Gay Marriage, is pro abortion,
denounces the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is it one of them beliefs that a
person thinks the Constitution is a document that can be changed year to year
to accomedate a group of peoples beliefs?

As I understand it, "Progressives" were originally progressive conservatives, which broke away from the Republican party, when republicans became too extreme in thier ambition to not allow change- Secular progressive thought, the scientific realm, acceptance of Darwin's theory, the strong ldealogical push not to allow technology and advanced science to redefine our country.

I myself am very conservative and deep inside, detest change. Over the years as my wisdom, and intellect allowed me to see the real world (society immediately around me) I started to realize that conservatives, have our society "locked Up", in other words they have shored up existing institutions so well, that meaningful change is never allowed- unless there is a lot of profit to be made.

Both Democrats and Republicans dont want progression or meaningful change, they would loose power, and their populace control through their institutions, would be loss.

I have given this example before, but here it is again, as simply as I can put it;
The people in power (reguardless of their names and affiliations) will not allow the United States of America to become a Democracy- if they did, 80% of those who "have not", would vote to allow them selves to "have". Thus control of politics and both parties is essential and of most importance to both parties, which is why we have the political system we have now- They tell you who you can vote for (through primaries)- they dont leave anything to chance.

I am sorry about the long lecture but I wanted to make sure we are all on the same page- theoritically.

I differ with repubs in the sense that I want any meaningful change, which will logically allow us as a country to evolve. Despite all the advancements to date, we are still stuck in the mid-twentieth century "politically"- this is deliberate and allows the old dinosaurs in congress and "within the loop" to feel some sense of normalcy and in control. I also know GWB is the most inept person to be president, and is shaming the repubican party- the main fustration for the average "Joe repub", that he is an embarassment, and so much time is spent defending him, when we could easily just admit our mistake, and put him down, and get someone else. Fiscally, GWB has turned out to be more Liberal than any Democrat could ever hope to be, in a prodominantly conservative controlled political bubble.

I also differ in the issue that I believe not everyone should be allowed to work. Repubs believe everyone should support themselves and work for a living, this ideal is flawed, if you ever remembered working with someone who was more of a liability than an asset.

Also traditionally, they have demanded a small decentralized government, but that is not what this admin. has realized.

At this time there is no real progressive party, but there is hope.

[snowdog]

Actually, it's the conservatives who believe that the Constitution can be changed to accomodate a group of people's beliefs. It seems that the only part of the Constitution that conservatives really like is the Second Amendment which doesn't really give everyone the right to bear arms.

Also, what's the problem with gay marriage? If you care so much about family values then why don't you ban divorce while you're at it? I bet a lot of people wouldn't like that, but at least the kids would grow up in a traditional family setting, right? And just because marriage has been defined a certain way doesn't mean it should stay that way. People who were against legalizing interracial marriages said that they didn't want to marriage redefined.

Nobody's pro-abortion. People are pro-choice, and they're going to stay pro-choice until you can give them undeniable proof that the fetus is a living, sentient human being.

Since that Dale guy never answered my question, I'm going to ask you: Why do you support the war in Iraq?

I never said If I supported the war in Iraq. being retired military and know
what I'm talking about though, I Support the troops over there. I pity the
fool that shows disrespect towards my Wife or Son when they return.

[gratelady1]

I never said If I supported the war in Iraq. being retired military and know
what I'm talking about though, I Support the troops over there. I pity the
fool that shows disrespect towards my Wife or Son when they return.

Do you believe they should be held accountable for their actions?
Or would you defend them, with the diffused responsibility arguement?

[snowdog]

Do you believe they should be held accountable for their actions?
Or would you defend them, with the diffused responsibility arguement?

Glady1: I urge you to look back the past 80 years, and tell me about what
GWB has done that former presidents haven't,

Educate your self, again, know what you are talking about.

[gratelady1]

Glady1: I urge you to look back the past 80 years, and tell me about what
GWB has done that former presidents haven't,

Educate your self, again, know what you are talking about.

What does my post (which you chose to quote), have to do with GWB's actions versus his predecessors?

Are you going off topic here?

Answer my last post about your relative's military actions, and whether you would or could hold then accountable first, and then I promise, I will do my best to follow up on any topic you want.

Remember, diversion from a topic (changing the subject) is paramount to admitting, the opposite of a premise of an arguement.

I believe you would put your family above the needs of your country. Prove me wrong.

[snowdog]

What does my post (which you chose to quote), have to do with GWB's actions versus his predecessors?

Are you going off topic here?

Answer my last post about your relative's military actions, and whether you would or could hold then accountable first, and then I promise, I will do my best to follow up on any topic you want.

Remember, diversion from a topic (changing the subject) is paramount to admitting, the opposite of a premise of an arguement.

I believe you would put your family above the needs of your country. Prove me wrong.


Humm well Glady, I assume your talking about the troops. Yes, I believe they
should be held accountable for their actions AS we all should. that includes
satements made by each of us as I have previously mentioned. as for putting
my families needs above my country, I am proud of my wife serving in the US
Navy, am I mad at the US Govt because they send her to Iraq? NO. same
with my Son in the USMC, I encouraged him to join. FYI, my brother
is missing his left leg from the knee down while he did a tour in Iraq last year.
am I mad at the US Govt or GWB NO is He? NO he is STILL in the ARMY !!

Do you remember the oath YOU took when you joined the US Coast Guard?
obviously you agreed to it, correct? LOL, going off topic, Diversion? who is
doing that? I'm STILL waiting for any factual evidence of GWB not caring about
the 3,000 killed. I have asked numerous times and yet you have yet to answer
that simple question?

[gratelady1]

Humm well Glady, I assume your talking about the troops. Yes, I believe they
should be held accountable for their actions AS we all should. that includes
satements made by each of us as I have previously mentioned. as for putting
my families needs above my country, I am proud of my wife serving in the US
Navy, am I mad at the US Govt because they send her to Iraq? NO. same
with my Son in the USMC, I encouraged him to join. FYI, my brother
is missing his left leg from the knee down while he did a tour in Iraq last year.
am I mad at the US Govt or GWB NO is He? NO he is STILL in the ARMY !!

Do you remember the oath YOU took when you joined the US Coast Guard?
obviously you agreed to it, correct? LOL, going off topic, Diversion? who is
doing that? I'm STILL waiting for any factual evidence of GWB not caring about
the 3,000 killed. I have asked numerous times and yet you have yet to answer
that simple question?

The part of my oath I remember most is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic- This is the main reason I say Bush should be held accountable- and why your wife and son should be protecting us from him.

[snowdog]

Dang it !! ya got me on that one too . seems like there's nothing I can
say that you aren't aware of and KNOW what your talking about gratelady1.
Ya got me stumped. Something tells me you got more college and experience
than I was led to believe. You really made the fool of me on several points.
I can see where I could learn alot from a person of your education. Do go on.

[gratelady1]

Ok, if you must know, will tell you all about me, once we have cleared up- at least one main issue, which has you in Bush's camp- sunk in so deep.

[snowdog]

Ok, if you must know, will tell you all about me, once we have cleared up- at least one main issue, which has you in Bush's camp- sunk in so deep.

Actually.......I kinda know all about you glady1. Your what made this
country great!! Per our "private" conversation, I told you I would see
things more to your side. Its hard for me to let go of my system of values
and jump into this new mindset. But I can see its for the better.

[Adolph]

It seems that the only part of the Constitution that conservatives really like is the Second Amendment which doesn't really give everyone the right to bear arms.

Oh it doesn't? I thought the Bill of Rights applied to everybody?

Please enlighten me as to why the 2'nd Ammendment does not apply to everybody?

[gratelady1]

Oh it doesn't? I thought the Bill of Rights applied to everybody?

Please enlighten me as to why the 2'nd Ammendment does not apply to everybody?

Any and all theorhetical laws only apply to those that know about them, understand their applicattion, and have the resources to execute them.

The up-side with all laws, is that we agree by convention to abide by them- to a point- ie. Toledo, Ohio yesterday. Once you hit a point that some can no longer tolerate, then your dissent becomes physical and the side who has the greater strength will enforce and win compliance to the winners' "interpretation of the their laws, ei. How GWB justifies killing babies around the world.

[haus]

I thought we could take another swing at this.

Let's start from a reference we all have access to, WikiPedia.org.

"Progressivism, is an ideology and political philosophy whose adherents promote policies that they believe would reform a country's government, economy, or society. As a broad characterization of political leanings, political progressivism can refer to left or antiestablishmentarianism, in which case it may be right or left, as long as the platform is reformist."

So, let's take a gander at this definition from, say, the early 1900's. And let's take a fairly neutral topic.

In the early part of the century, it wasn't uncommon for factory workers to starve to death. Progressives responded in Massachusetts in 1912 by instating a minimum wage. By 1933 FDR pushed through a federal minimum wage law. In 1935, the Supreme Court declared it (as part of The National Recovery Act) unconstitutional. In 1938, it was reenacted as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It's survived until today.

Everything above is pretty opinion-free. The stuff below has some opinions in it.

Being pro-business and anti-regulation is a cornerstone of American conservatism. Establishing a minimum wage seems non-conservative for the following reasons:


it interferes in a business owner's freedoms
most conservatives would say the "free market" should set wages


Now, you can use this model to look at all sorts of hot-button issues (except some real historical divisions between liberals and conservatives have gone topsy-turvy in the last twenty years).

Look at "outsourcing" or moving American jobs overseas. In theory, the conservative should say "it's good for business, let the market determine where the jobs should be." Since Reagan, there's been another popular twist: outsourcing is good for us, because the wealth from the increased profits would trickle down to the people who lost their jobs.

The progressive would have two issues to contend with: 1) That poor bastard in South Carolina lost his job, let's do some reform, and 2) That poor bastard in Cambodia isn't being paid fairly, let's be internationalist and whip Cambodia into shape.

This issue is, quite honestly, one thing that makes progressives wince when people call Bill Clinton liberal (cf. NAFTA). It's also (at least for me) a thing that draws us to John Edwards.

[gratelady1]

As I understand it, "Progressives" were originally progressive conservatives, which broke away from the Republican party, when republicans became too extreme in thier ambition to not allow change- Secular progressive thought, the scientific realm, acceptance of Darwin's theory, the strong ldealogical push not to allow technology and advanced science to redefine our country.

I myself am very conservative and deep inside, detest change. Over the years as my wisdom, and intellect allowed me to see the real world (society immediately around me) I started to realize that conservatives, have our society "locked Up", in other words they have shored up existing institutions so well, that meaningful change is never allowed- unless there is a lot of profit to be made.

Both Democrats and Republicans dont want progression or meaningful change, they would loose power, and their populace control through their institutions, would be loss.

I have given this example before, but here it is again, as simply as I can put it;
The people in power (reguardless of their names and affiliations) will not allow the United States of America to become a Democracy- if they did, 80% of those who "have not", would vote to allow them selves to "have". Thus control of politics and both parties is essential and of most importance to both parties, which is why we have the political system we have now- They tell you who you can vote for (through primaries)- they dont leave anything to chance.

I am sorry about the long lecture but I wanted to make sure we are all on the same page- theoritically.

I differ with repubs in the sense that I want any meaningful change, which will logically allow us as a country to evolve. Despite all the advancements to date, we are still stuck in the mid-twentieth century "politically"- this is deliberate and allows the old dinosaurs in congress and "within the loop" to feel some sense of normalcy and in control. I also know GWB is the most inept person to be president, and is shaming the repubican party- the main fustration for the average "Joe repub", that he is an embarassment, and so much time is spent defending him, when we could easily just admit our mistake, and put him down, and get someone else. Fiscally, GWB has turned out to be more Liberal than any Democrat could ever hope to be, in a prodominantly conservative controlled political bubble.

I also differ in the issue that I believe not everyone should be allowed to work. Repubs believe everyone should support themselves and work for a living, this ideal is flawed, if you ever remembered working with someone who was more of a liability than an asset.

Also traditionally, they have demanded a small decentralized government, but that is not what this admin. has realized.

At this time there is no real progressive party, but there is hope.

Uhh- guess what? I like my defintion better. :D