Can You Be Both An American and A Progressive?

[Vast LWC]

Ah, it's really just my general response when people brag about the ratings of their favorite talking heads.

If it was some Olbermann fan, I'd just substitute "left-wing" for "right-wing".

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh I've been learning what Progressive means, and once you do and then listen to Obama or Hillary or Michelle,

I didn't you could get any dumber.

Have you seen the ratings for Beck?

Millions of Americans agree with me, highest rankings on Fox, second most watched personality anywhere currently.

Go Beck

Have you seen the ratings for professional wrestling? American Idol?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The new Far-Right Wingnut response is "Woodrow Wilson."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Classic!

I'm still trying to put the pieces of this puzzle together. Progressives are racists because Woodrow Wilson was somehow a racist, and progressives are un-American because they don't adhere to the inalienable rights concept of the Declaration of Independence,

which was written by a slaveowner.

Is that pretty much where we are here?

 

[Chris]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Well, let’s see what Progressives believe, and see if you can subscribe…

1. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution are founded on the idea that people are born with inalienable rights, given by one’s Creator, not by a legislative body or government that can decide which ones you have, and can remove them.
a. Not according to Progressives. Woodrow Wilson, of the Declaration of Independence, from “What is Progress?”
“Some citizens of this country never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776….The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives…”
b. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
The Constitution stands in the way of the Progressives' agenda.

2. The founders believed in the sanctity of private property…but not Progressives:
a. Madison, 1792, said that ‘property’ included our natural rights, and the goal of government is the protection of property.
b. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “Socialism and Democracy” said ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’ The collective is not limited by individual rights.


3. How about the idea of checks and balances, you know, so that no one branch or individual accumulates too much power? Good idea or bad?
a.Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.
b. Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. “Beware of government by experts and bureaucrats.”
c. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “What is Progress?” Wilson compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct an orrery, a simple machine, based on immutable laws as in Newtonian physics, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. “It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.” See, Progressives want on separation or check on the power to do as they wish.


4. Progressives know how stupid the masses are, and that is why Progressive journalists editorialize instead of report the news… to tell you what you should think.
a. : “President Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive, spoke often of his "vision," introducing a term that has now become central to our understanding of presidential politics. Wilson believed, as Kesler puts it, "that to become a leader you have to have a vision of the future and communicate that vision to the unanointed, mass public. You have to make them believe in your prophetic ability."
The Roots Of Liberalism - Forbes.com
b. Modern journalism is based on Progressives’ ideas: use the media to ‘teach’ people. Alter journalism from reporting facts to editorializing in the news, as the elites always know better. Walter Lippmann, Progressive (American newspaper commentator and author who in a 60-year career made himself one of the most widely respected political columnists in the world.)Public Opinion, “When properly deployed in the public interest, the manufacture of consent is useful and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, “the common interests” of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data — a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them, by the well-informed.” Public Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


5.But that’s the ‘old time’ Progressive…not the current group. Right? Wrong.
a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he’d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision…or, I guess, another executive order?
b. Ms. Clinton: “"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal
c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves, so don't quote them to me.

Progressive ideas always win in the end because they are morally correct.

From women's rights to blacks rights to gay rights to whatever, the progressive ideas always win.

Too bad you are on the wrong side of history.

 

[Father Time]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Well, let’s see what Progressives believe, and see if you can subscribe…

1. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution are founded on the idea that people are born with inalienable rights, given by one’s Creator, not by a legislative body or government that can decide which ones you have, and can remove them.
a. Not according to Progressives. Woodrow Wilson, of the Declaration of Independence, from “What is Progress?”
“Some citizens of this country never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776….The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives…”
b. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
The Constitution stands in the way of the Progressives' agenda.

2. The founders believed in the sanctity of private property…but not Progressives:
a. Madison, 1792, said that ‘property’ included our natural rights, and the goal of government is the protection of property.
b. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “Socialism and Democracy” said ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’ The collective is not limited by individual rights.


3. How about the idea of checks and balances, you know, so that no one branch or individual accumulates too much power? Good idea or bad?
a.Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.
b. Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. “Beware of government by experts and bureaucrats.”
c. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “What is Progress?” Wilson compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct an orrery, a simple machine, based on immutable laws as in Newtonian physics, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. “It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.” See, Progressives want on separation or check on the power to do as they wish.


4. Progressives know how stupid the masses are, and that is why Progressive journalists editorialize instead of report the news… to tell you what you should think.
a. : “President Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive, spoke often of his "vision," introducing a term that has now become central to our understanding of presidential politics. Wilson believed, as Kesler puts it, "that to become a leader you have to have a vision of the future and communicate that vision to the unanointed, mass public. You have to make them believe in your prophetic ability."
The Roots Of Liberalism - Forbes.com
b. Modern journalism is based on Progressives’ ideas: use the media to ‘teach’ people. Alter journalism from reporting facts to editorializing in the news, as the elites always know better. Walter Lippmann, Progressive (American newspaper commentator and author who in a 60-year career made himself one of the most widely respected political columnists in the world.)Public Opinion, “When properly deployed in the public interest, the manufacture of consent is useful and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, “the common interests” of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data — a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them, by the well-informed.” Public Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


5.But that’s the ‘old time’ Progressive…not the current group. Right? Wrong.
a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he’d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision…or, I guess, another executive order?
b. Ms. Clinton: “"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal
c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves, so don't quote them to me.

Nice ad hominem you got there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves, so don't quote them to me.

Progressive ideas always win in the end because they are morally correct.

From women's rights to blacks rights to gay rights to whatever, the progressive ideas always win.

Too bad you are on the wrong side of history.

In short,

the history of Conservatism is a history of being on the wrong side of history.

You can put the current conservative opposition to gay rights in that category, as will be demonstrated in due time.

 

[xotoxi]

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

Bernie Madoff was the most trusted investor in New York.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Oh I've been learning what Progressive means, and once you do and then listen to Obama or Hillary or Michelle,

I didn't you could get any dumber.

Have you seen the ratings for Beck?

Millions of Americans agree with me, highest rankings on Fox, second most watched personality anywhere currently.

Go Beck

Appeal to the majority.

Millions agreed with Hitler. That doens't mean he was right.

 

[traveler52]

Thank you for your service to our country.

I say this ONE TIME and and ONE TIME ONLY.

Do not thank me for my service, I despise people who that, people who think that by thanking someone for their military service means something, which it does not.

People who thank are usually the same people, who when they had the chance to serve, ran for the hills as fast as their legs could carry them (dick[less] cheney comes to mind, a Draft Dodger).

My post stands, all of it.

No one person or group of persons or political group owns the U.S. Constitution. No one person or group of persons can lay claim to being a "Good American".

The road to Auschwitz was paved with the intention of saving the "Pure Aryan Race" from the pollution of so-called "Sub-Humans". Men, Women and Children who were deemed not fit to live because they were not "Good Germans". In the end over Twelve Million (12,000,000) human beings were murdered because they did not deserve to live, because they were not "Pure Aryan", Six Million (6,000,000) were Jews.

The premise that the only "Real Americans." the only "Good Americans" are Conservative is a false premise. There are many Conservative Americans who believe that ALL American Muslim should be forced to wear a badge (just like the Jews had to wear the Yellow Star of David) on the clothing. These same Conservatives have no problem with rounding up Muslims and putting in Camps to "Keep The Rest of America Safe." Just think, we could put all the Muslims in Camps, we could them let's see....Religious Re-Education Centers and then we could make sure that America was safe. We could the infants from their Mothers and raise them to be "Good Christian Americans." (this has happened before in America, just ask the Native American Population). Those who refused to submitt, well there are ways of handling them aren't there? We could ban Islam as a religion (regardless of our First Amendment Freedom of Religion, we all know that Islam is NOT a religion) anyone who refused to convert would be "Processed" in a humane manner.

Don't try and tell there are not men and women in this country today, right now who do not think that doing the above would be a good thing. Doing so would alot more than just slightly dishonest, and one whole helluva lot more that lying.

I do not need guidence from you on what to post, when to post or how to post. I am quite capable of doing so on my own, and if you don't like what I post, there is always the ignore option.

 

[Bfgrn]

Can you be both a Progressive and an American?

Well, let’s see what Progressives believe, and see if you can subscribe…

1. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution are founded on the idea that people are born with inalienable rights, given by one’s Creator, not by a legislative body or government that can decide which ones you have, and can remove them.
a. Not according to Progressives. Woodrow Wilson, of the Declaration of Independence, from “What is Progress?”
“Some citizens of this country never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776….The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives…”
b. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
The Constitution stands in the way of the Progressives' agenda.

2. The founders believed in the sanctity of private property…but not Progressives:
a. Madison, 1792, said that ‘property’ included our natural rights, and the goal of government is the protection of property.
b. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “Socialism and Democracy” said ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’ The collective is not limited by individual rights.


3. How about the idea of checks and balances, you know, so that no one branch or individual accumulates too much power? Good idea or bad?
a.Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.
b. Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. “Beware of government by experts and bureaucrats.”
c. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “What is Progress?” Wilson compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct an orrery, a simple machine, based on immutable laws as in Newtonian physics, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. “It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.” See, Progressives want on separation or check on the power to do as they wish.

PC, there is not a shred of honesty or scruples in your character. Is that how you were raised? You continue your right wing efforts to disgrace liberals and progressives. But your method is to consciously post hacked up sentences and to select words out of context to portraying only YOUR right wing agenda. You delete any sentences, words or qualifiers that you don't want to be seen when they don't forward your twisted agenda. You have no regard or conscience when you distort or misrepresent the original authors' intent or beliefs.

NOW, here's the rest of the story...

Woodrow Wilson's long-standing attachment to the organic analogy was linked to his admiration for Edmund Burke, of whom he wrote in 1893: "If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law

Wilson was alluding to a constitution that serves the living, not the dead.

Thomas Jefferson

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15

 

[Gadawg73]

The Founders of this country were radical progressives.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I would have to say yes because being an American just refers to your nation of origin and not your political beliefs.

"Being an American" is a state of one's patriotism; Progressives can't and won't be patriotic.

 

[Bfgrn]

I would have to say yes because being an American just refers to your nation of origin and not your political beliefs.

"Being an American" is a state of one's patriotism; Progressives can't and won't be patriotic.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.
Me

 

[Darkwind]

Can you engage in mud slinging and holier than though bullshitting and still be respected?

I'd hope not.

When the fuck did Wilson (or Hillary) become spokesperson for the progressives? Was there some press conference I missed?

When I open the USMB and find a negative rep, like the one I just found from this dolt, it becomes a curiousity to find why one poster would deem it advisable to use the neg rep, and this is how it appears to me: those who respond in a thread fall into one of several categories,
1. The thoughtful, intelligent poster who provide a cogent, point-for-point refutation of the OP.

2. The in-a-hurry poster, who may pick out one or two items to deal with.

3. The majority who read the posts, and move on without responding

4. The incensed, irate poster who may challenge the very creation of the OP, and be shocked that anyone would write such an OP

5. The foul-mouthed poster, limited in knowledge, but not in four letter words.

6. The A.D.D. poster whose post has nothing to do with the OP

7. And that brings one to Father Toad: the lowest level of poster: the neg rep poster. This cowardly fellow ignores the purpose of a message board, the open and public discourse and exchange of ideas. Following the Toad’s methods, what would be the attraction of a message board?

Through all this you don't answer the question of when did Wilson become the voice of all progressives. This is a cheap trick to pick one random person of the opposition and pretend everyone on whatever side agrees with them.

And I have to ask why you felt it necessary to point out my profanity? The use of it does not negate my point at all.

Oh and I said the same thing here that I said in the neg rep that the use of 'pick someone from the other side and use them as a blanket statement to condemn the whole lot' is slimey partisan bullcrap. It's guilt by association and blanket statements.

Just so that the rest of the forum has an understanding.

You do the exact same thing when the Democrat party isolates a single individual (I'm speaking of the palinphobes here) and then assigns to the Republican party all of her beliefs. You do give negative rep to the Democrats here that do that as well, right?

 

[Darkwind]

I find it hilarious that the very people who have no scruples, character or honor on these forums now question those very qualities of others in the opposing ideological camp. Those of you who do nothing but ridicule, insult and hurl vile invectives at you political opponents are suddenly taken aback at your ideology being (correctly) identified and exposed to the attention of the rest of the world.

Pathetic is an apt word to describe you all.

 

[Bfgrn]

I find it hilarious that the very people who have no scruples, character or honor on these forums now question those very qualities of others in the opposing ideological camp. Those of you who do nothing but ridicule, insult and hurl vile invectives at you political opponents are suddenly taken aback at your ideology being (correctly) identified and exposed to the attention of the rest of the world.

Pathetic is an apt word to describe you all.

Pathetic is your pontification...

 

[Darkwind]

I find it hilarious that the very people who have no scruples, character or honor on these forums now question those very qualities of others in the opposing ideological camp. Those of you who do nothing but ridicule, insult and hurl vile invectives at you political opponents are suddenly taken aback at your ideology being (correctly) identified and exposed to the attention of the rest of the world.

Pathetic is an apt word to describe you all.

Pathetic is your pontification...

I see that you still have nothing worth imparting to the world. Not surprising.

Let Me know when your brain wakes up. Bye bye now.

 

[ItHappens]

I think the term "American" really is nothing more than a reference to nation of orgin and/or where your citzenship is.
I don't believe in the term "Progressive."
These libs who like to label themselves as such are arrogant and condescending.
While, actually, they are nothing more than "Regressives" who advocate failed policies of past Presidents as well as nations.

 

[Modbert]

Politicalchic: Proving daily that stupidity truly does have equality when it comes to gender.

 

[Bfgrn]

Politicalchic: Proving daily that stupidity truly does have equality when it comes to gender.

The real irony is PC is a female...

Let's imagine for a moment what being a female is like in an ultra conservative society devoid of a progressive movement...