Hello! I am The Progressive Patriot!

You can be a Constitutionalist first and a Communist second.

I don't agree. The left is dedicated to top down control of the populace and the economy in the pursuit of "fairness." This is in direct conflict to the US Constitution and the guarantees of individual liberty.



You can be a Constitutioanlist first and a Progressive second.

This is like saying you can be a Christian first, and a Catholic or Baptist second.
or a Christian first and a Unitarian second, or even a Buddhist or Muslim.

The Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and Unitarians may not agree with each other
over the Trinity, Baptism or Communion, etc.

But if they put the central faith first, and their individual rituals and practices second,
then their individual labels and denominational difference do not have to stand in the way
of being united in Christ on the central policies that count so they can operate in unison.

Uncensored2008 what I might say
is you cannot say you defend equal Constitutional rights for all people including free exercise of
BELIEF, "due process of the law" (ie innocence until proven guilty)
and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by CREED,
but then go around and violate DUE PROCESS by condemning, punishing and excluding people
in advance, based on a label, before proving what that person did wrong.

To do so would be invoking such "due process" for oneself, and equal protection of one's own beliefs and creed, while seeking to demolish the same rights of someone else based on your opinion of their beliefs. How does YOUR opinion of someone's label make THEM guilty of what YOU associate with that group? If our govt operated that way, and found us "guilty by association" we'd yell and scream. So why are we content to do this to our neighbor, when we would not want to be judged by the OPINION of someone else.

We have too much of this destructive counterproductive behavior going on in the name of politics. If we are going to enforce Constitutional laws,
and hold Govt accountable for "due process and equal protections"
shouldn't we start with ourselves and make sure we respect the same standard principles.

see also ethics-commission.net

In a free society, people are free from discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT. Where we go astray is when we dictate the thoughts and actions of individuals. I have no right to tell you who to like, who to make friends with. Free people decide who they will associate with and conduct business with.


Just because you seem to have some ability to string words together and for a sentence, it does not mean that it makes any sense. Top down control? Really. That would only be true if, by top down control you mean all forms of government regulation of business and finances, all environmental regulation, all civil rights and hate crimes legislation and all social entitlement programs. Am I right? Admit it. That is what you want. To do away with all of that. Basically anarchy. No government at all.

And if we did have, THEN we would have real top down control. Top down control of the economy by the corporation Top down control of the government by the wealthy who will sure as shit own it .And top down control of morality by the religious right.

THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

As far as individual freedom goes, where the hell does that constitutional say that anyone has unlimited, unconditional freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whoever they want with no accountability. Now what you’re advocating is beyond anarchy. It’s not even civilization. Even primitive societies have, at minimum, social and cultural controls, as well as tribal rules and customs. You sound like a two year old who just wants to have what you want, when you want it and consequences be damned and to hell with anyone who comes out on the short end. Anyone who wants that is just stupid, and anyone who does not believe that it would happen if government there to prevent it is even more stupid..
 
Last edited:
You can be a Constitutionalist first and a Communist second.

I don't agree. The left is dedicated to top down control of the populace and the economy in the pursuit of "fairness." This is in direct conflict to the US Constitution and the guarantees of individual liberty.

You can be a Constitutioanlist first and a Progressive second.

This is like saying you can be a Christian first, and a Catholic or Baptist second.
or a Christian first and a Unitarian second, or even a Buddhist or Muslim.

The Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and Unitarians may not agree with each other
over the Trinity, Baptism or Communion, etc.

But if they put the central faith first, and their individual rituals and practices second,
then their individual labels and denominational difference do not have to stand in the way
of being united in Christ on the central policies that count so they can operate in unison.

Uncensored2008 what I might say
is you cannot say you defend equal Constitutional rights for all people including free exercise of
BELIEF, "due process of the law" (ie innocence until proven guilty)
and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by CREED,
but then go around and violate DUE PROCESS by condemning, punishing and excluding people
in advance, based on a label, before proving what that person did wrong.

To do so would be invoking such "due process" for oneself, and equal protection of one's own beliefs and creed, while seeking to demolish the same rights of someone else based on your opinion of their beliefs. How does YOUR opinion of someone's label make THEM guilty of what YOU associate with that group? If our govt operated that way, and found us "guilty by association" we'd yell and scream. So why are we content to do this to our neighbor, when we would not want to be judged by the OPINION of someone else.

We have too much of this destructive counterproductive behavior going on in the name of politics. If we are going to enforce Constitutional laws,
and hold Govt accountable for "due process and equal protections"
shouldn't we start with ourselves and make sure we respect the same standard principles.

see also ethics-commission.net

In a free society, people are free from discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT. Where we go astray is when we dictate the thoughts and actions of individuals. I have no right to tell you who to like, who to make friends with. Free people decide who they will associate with and conduct business with.

A. Dear @Uncensored the "Left" you see in public, the wealthy politicrats
are generally made fun of and despised as much by the REAL left.

The Green Progressives are generally forced to lead their own movements and programs
independently because the Democrat Party is so hijacked by politicians and corporate interests,
nobody can get much of anything past that. Only electing key people who can play the Media
and if you don't follow the party line, there is no room for input much less discussion.

We are probably against the same problems plaguing BOTH major parties,
and then affecting everyone else.

I personally cannot stand what the Clintons and now Obama have done
to sabotage the work of the grassroots constituents trying to build from the ground up
but being forced to compete with wealthy politicians getting in bed with corporate developers and interests
to tear down and hijack everything for power.

We are sick of it, too!

I think we'd have to come up with a NAME for the "Commercialized Left" or
the Politicized Left that abuses the Party to push agenda for elections and talking points to tear down others.
I hear nothing but complaints from the Right about "career politicians"
pushing all the right buttons to get elected, and then going along with 'whatever"
is convenient to float in office, and not doing any real work. So sounds like the same mess
but in stereo, left and right.

Whoever is egging that on should stop, or you can't tell the difference
between the real Pitbulls and the Owners and who is really behind the attacks.

B. The real activists doing the work, guess what, you won't likely see in the media.

You would have to go out in the field to find the Green Progressives working with
the Libertarian Independents on issues of sustainable self-govt that the Media won't cover.

How can they? It doesn't fit into a "simplified" Left-vs.-Right sound byte.

So the Media cannot explain real solutions that require longterm collaboration
and careful economic and human resources planning to manage that level of infrastructure
and coordinating people and programs to make something actually work!!1

The solutions we want to be "spoonfed" through the media as easy fixes
aren't that easy in real life. Just be "prochoice" and outvote the "prolife"
or just be "progun" and outvote the "pro gun control". That's all the Media can tell us.

It's like wanting Hollywood to sell us the happy ending we want to cram
in a 2 hour script, when in real life, success can take 20-30 years to establish
a program and 50 more to make it sustainable and replicable where it is stable.

So what you see in the Media is the fake Hollywood romance
when in real life, to make a real marriage work isn't pretty at all.

There's a lot of fighting and struggling to work things out for the longterm.

Sorry @Uncensored but if you go by what you see in the Media
that's like thinking all people are romanticized like Superman or Wonder Woman
or the Witch in the Wizard of Oz, or the Grinch. We like to simplify
things "so we can make sense of our world"
but in real life, people and political reality are not simple caricatures we can label and be done with it.

It takes a lot more work that that. A lot more.
You can't just label entire groups
to be "all good" or "all bad."

Whatever people are doing, each group is ultimately responsible for
fixing and governing their own community and programs, so we need to work with
ALL of them to make sure they cover the membership they are responsible for representing.

Its like a whole ecosystem where each person and group
plays a special role, and we need to coordinate and not work at cross purposes.

It's not so simple as labeling an entire group for certain problems,
blaming and rejecting, and thinking you are done. We still have to deal with the problems
that divide us and cost all taxpayers and public more money if these aren't solved,
so labeling and rejecting each other makes it that much harder to find solutions.

Believe me, as much as I cannot stand the elitists who profit so much off conflicts
and problems, we still have to work with the people running the business and legal
monopolies, including the media conglomerates, to get solutions going for the longterm.

There is not a single person or group on the planet that isn't needed
to share in responsibilities for fixing the problems we have today.

That's reality.
 
You can be a Constitutionalist first and a Communist second.

I don't agree. The left is dedicated to top down control of the populace and the economy in the pursuit of "fairness." This is in direct conflict to the US Constitution and the guarantees of individual liberty.



You can be a Constitutioanlist first and a Progressive second.

This is like saying you can be a Christian first, and a Catholic or Baptist second.
or a Christian first and a Unitarian second, or even a Buddhist or Muslim.

The Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and Unitarians may not agree with each other
over the Trinity, Baptism or Communion, etc.

But if they put the central faith first, and their individual rituals and practices second,
then their individual labels and denominational difference do not have to stand in the way
of being united in Christ on the central policies that count so they can operate in unison.

Uncensored2008 what I might say
is you cannot say you defend equal Constitutional rights for all people including free exercise of
BELIEF, "due process of the law" (ie innocence until proven guilty)
and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by CREED,
but then go around and violate DUE PROCESS by condemning, punishing and excluding people
in advance, based on a label, before proving what that person did wrong.

To do so would be invoking such "due process" for oneself, and equal protection of one's own beliefs and creed, while seeking to demolish the same rights of someone else based on your opinion of their beliefs. How does YOUR opinion of someone's label make THEM guilty of what YOU associate with that group? If our govt operated that way, and found us "guilty by association" we'd yell and scream. So why are we content to do this to our neighbor, when we would not want to be judged by the OPINION of someone else.

We have too much of this destructive counterproductive behavior going on in the name of politics. If we are going to enforce Constitutional laws,
and hold Govt accountable for "due process and equal protections"
shouldn't we start with ourselves and make sure we respect the same standard principles.

see also ethics-commission.net

In a free society, people are free from discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT. Where we go astray is when we dictate the thoughts and actions of individuals. I have no right to tell you who to like, who to make friends with. Free people decide who they will associate with and conduct business with.


Just because you seem to have some ability to string words together and for a sentence, it does not mean that it makes any sense. Top down control? Really. That would only be true if, by top down control you mean all forms of government regulation of business and finances, all environmental regulation, all civil rights and hate crimes legislation and all social entitlement programs. Am I right? Admit it. That is what you want. To do away with all of that. Basically anarchy. No government at all.

And if we did have, THEN we would have real top down control. Top down control of the economy by the corporation Top down control of the government by the wealthy who will sure as shit own it .And top down control of morality by the religious right.

THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

As far as individual freedom goes, where the hell does that constitutional say that anyone has unlimited, unconditional freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whoever they want with no accountability. Now what you’re advocating is beyond anarchy. It’s not even civilization. Even primitive societies have, at minimum, social and cultural controls, as well as tribal rules and customs. You sound like a two year old who just wants to have what you want, when you want it and consequences be damned and to hell with anyone who comes out on the short end. Anyone who wants that is just stupid, and anyone who does not believe that it would happen if government there to prevent it is even more stupid..

Dear TheProgressivePatriot and Uncensored2008
What if we held both citizens, govt AND corporations/collective institutions
to respect the SAME Constitutional standards of
* due process and democratic right to petition to redress grievances
* limits and separation of powers
* checks and balances
* equal inclusion, representation, defense, and protection of the laws
* consent of the governed in resolving conflicts instead of bullying by exclusion or coercion

Can't we balance both freedom and responsibility not to abuse
our rights and freedoms where we start to infringe on the equal protection of others?

I see that neither the Right wants the Left abusing govt to impose agenda, political
beliefs and call it Constitutional Govt as long as it passes,
nor does the Left want the Right abusing the Constitution to justify
deregulating to the point where Corporate interests go unchecked.

The problem brought out by the Greens is the lack of check on
Corporations with both Personhood as individuals claiming civil rights
and collective influence on the same level as Govt but without the checks and balances!

So if we were to address the Corporate abuses of collective influence,
authority and resources (especially Courts and buying lawyers and judges in a legislative lobby
that monopolizes all govt if all decisions are controlled by lawyers and who sues or wins in court)
then that would address
* the Media
* the religious organizations and political parties
* the corporate lobbies and collective monopolies
* the legal and judicial monopoly
* the banking, financial and credit system and deals going on for politics there

Isn't that the problem? If collective Corporations have as much influence and power
as govts do, but without any Constitutional checks such as requiring due process, right to petition,
and not just "doing whatever they want until someone sues and WINS to make them stop by force of law or court order"

Why not address that source of "imbalance of power without check by the people"
and see how many other areas would be cleared up at the same time?
 
Just because you seem to have some ability to string words together and for a sentence, it does not mean that it makes any sense.

That you disagree is not the same as the sentence not making sense. My words were perfectly understandable to a reasonably intelligent person, and in fact you understand them fully.

In your arrogance, you believe that belittling is a valid form of argumentation, it is not, it is logical fallacy.


Top down control? Really. That would only be true if, by top down control you mean all forms of government regulation of business and finances, all environmental regulation, all civil rights and hate crimes legislation and all social entitlement programs. Am I right? Admit it. That is what you want. To do away with all of that. Basically anarchy. No government at all.

Leftism concentrates power in the hands of the central authority. In the case of the democrats, this means shifting of power and responsibility away from local and state government and into the hands of the federal government. Even on smaller scales, the desire to concentrate power into a central, ruling body is ever-present.

Take the Peoples Republic of California, for instance. It is fully in the hands of the radical left, with no viable opposition from capitalists or civil libertarians at any level.

So what have to socialist overlords in the state done? Centralized, of course. In pursuing the collectivist dream, the socialist overlords have gone to war against suburban housing. Following the lead of the Soviet Central planners, Sacramento has stripped localities of the power to zone, in an effort to force an unwilling populace into densely populated urban centers. By denying cities the ability to permit new housing in suburbs, the Soviet Central planners seek to force people into the large cities, to renting apartments from landlords, to break the independence of property ownership.

This is an example of top down control - which is a universal feature leftism - the absolute belief of any leftist is that they are FAR better suited to manage your life than you are.

The whole concept of central planners lies at the heart of socialism.

And if we did have, THEN we would have real top down control. Top down control of the economy by the corporation Top down control of the government by the wealthy who will sure as shit own it .And top down control of morality by the religious right.

THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

As far as individual freedom goes, where the hell does that constitutional say that anyone has unlimited, unconditional freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whoever they want with no accountability. Now what you’re advocating is beyond anarchy. It’s not even civilization. Even primitive societies have, at minimum, social and cultural controls, as well as tribal rules and customs. You sound like a two year old who just wants to have what you want, when you want it and consequences be damned and to hell with anyone who comes out on the short end. Anyone who wants that is just stupid, and anyone who does not believe that it would happen if government there to prevent it is even more stupid..

Top down control by "the corporations" is a bit of retardation socialists like to feed the ignorant fools who buy into the venom spewed by the left.

How would the "corporations" exert top down control? What power do they have to impose any control? Further, if McDonalds tries to exert control, won't Taco Bell or Burger King move to counter that control as competitors?

See, you haven't really thought this through, you are just reciting memes from socialist sites with no critical examination on your part.
 
A. Dear @Uncensored the "Left" you see in public, the wealthy politicrats
are generally made fun of and despised as much by the REAL left.

Emily, I don't see George Soros or the other powers behind the left "made fun of."

Further, when the left is ordered to back Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, the usual toadies will be fanatics in their service.

The Green Progressives are generally forced to lead their own movements and programs
independently because the Democrat Party is so hijacked by politicians and corporate interests,
nobody can get much of anything past that. Only electing key people who can play the Media
and if you don't follow the party line, there is no room for input much less discussion.

Building a coalition while excluding most of the productive segment would make the gaining of power difficult. Ultimately the left seeks power above all else. Identity politics such as the green movement is a manipulation technique, a divide and conquer strategy. The greens ultimately vote for the dims, even as they complain.

We are probably against the same problems plaguing BOTH major parties,
and then affecting everyone else.

I personally cannot stand what the Clintons and now Obama have done
to sabotage the work of the grassroots constituents trying to build from the ground up
but being forced to compete with wealthy politicians getting in bed with corporate developers and interests
to tear down and hijack everything for power.

We have spoken before. I am what I claim to be, a Libertarian.

I support and promote liberty - making me the arch enemy of the left. which seek collectivism and uniformity.

We are sick of it, too!

I think we'd have to come up with a NAME for the "Commercialized Left" or
the Politicized Left that abuses the Party to push agenda for elections and talking points to tear down others.
I hear nothing but complaints from the Right about "career politicians"
pushing all the right buttons to get elected, and then going along with 'whatever"
is convenient to float in office, and not doing any real work. So sounds like the same mess
but in stereo, left and right.

Whoever is egging that on should stop, or you can't tell the difference
between the real Pitbulls and the Owners and who is really behind the attacks.

B. The real activists doing the work, guess what, you won't likely see in the media.

You would have to go out in the field to find the Green Progressives working with
the Libertarian Independents on issues of sustainable self-govt that the Media won't cover.

How can they? It doesn't fit into a "simplified" Left-vs.-Right sound byte.

So the Media cannot explain real solutions that require longterm collaboration
and careful economic and human resources planning to manage that level of infrastructure
and coordinating people and programs to make something actually work!!1

The solutions we want to be "spoonfed" through the media as easy fixes
aren't that easy in real life. Just be "prochoice" and outvote the "prolife"
or just be "progun" and outvote the "pro gun control". That's all the Media can tell us.

It's like wanting Hollywood to sell us the happy ending we want to cram
in a 2 hour script, when in real life, success can take 20-30 years to establish
a program and 50 more to make it sustainable and replicable where it is stable.

So what you see in the Media is the fake Hollywood romance
when in real life, to make a real marriage work isn't pretty at all.

There's a lot of fighting and struggling to work things out for the longterm.

Sorry @Uncensored but if you go by what you see in the Media
that's like thinking all people are romanticized like Superman or Wonder Woman
or the Witch in the Wizard of Oz, or the Grinch. We like to simplify
things "so we can make sense of our world"
but in real life, people and political reality are not simple caricatures we can label and be done with it.

It takes a lot more work that that. A lot more.
You can't just label entire groups
to be "all good" or "all bad."

Whatever people are doing, each group is ultimately responsible for
fixing and governing their own community and programs, so we need to work with
ALL of them to make sure they cover the membership they are responsible for representing.

Its like a whole ecosystem where each person and group
plays a special role, and we need to coordinate and not work at cross purposes.

It's not so simple as labeling an entire group for certain problems,
blaming and rejecting, and thinking you are done. We still have to deal with the problems
that divide us and cost all taxpayers and public more money if these aren't solved,
so labeling and rejecting each other makes it that much harder to find solutions.

Believe me, as much as I cannot stand the elitists who profit so much off conflicts
and problems, we still have to work with the people running the business and legal
monopolies, including the media conglomerates, to get solutions going for the longterm.

There is not a single person or group on the planet that isn't needed
to share in responsibilities for fixing the problems we have today.

That's reality.

The left and right have diametrically opposed view for how society should operate.

The right trusts people, and seeks to let people run their own lives. The left detests people and believes that only strict controls over people will keep them from exploiting the underprivileged.

The right views individual liberty as the highest good, the left sees empowerment of the group or collective as the greatest good.

The left and right seek the opposite outcomes. We either can be a land of individual liberty where all are free to do what they will, as long as it causes no direct harm to others. Or we will be a highly managed collective where central planners will place the needs of the environment, social justice, etc. ahead of the liberty of people. We cannot be both.
 
You can be a Constitutionalist first and a Communist second.

I don't agree. The left is dedicated to top down control of the populace and the economy in the pursuit of "fairness." This is in direct conflict to the US Constitution and the guarantees of individual liberty.



You can be a Constitutioanlist first and a Progressive second.

This is like saying you can be a Christian first, and a Catholic or Baptist second.
or a Christian first and a Unitarian second, or even a Buddhist or Muslim.

The Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and Unitarians may not agree with each other
over the Trinity, Baptism or Communion, etc.

But if they put the central faith first, and their individual rituals and practices second,
then their individual labels and denominational difference do not have to stand in the way
of being united in Christ on the central policies that count so they can operate in unison.

Uncensored2008 what I might say
is you cannot say you defend equal Constitutional rights for all people including free exercise of
BELIEF, "due process of the law" (ie innocence until proven guilty)
and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by CREED,
but then go around and violate DUE PROCESS by condemning, punishing and excluding people
in advance, based on a label, before proving what that person did wrong.

To do so would be invoking such "due process" for oneself, and equal protection of one's own beliefs and creed, while seeking to demolish the same rights of someone else based on your opinion of their beliefs. How does YOUR opinion of someone's label make THEM guilty of what YOU associate with that group? If our govt operated that way, and found us "guilty by association" we'd yell and scream. So why are we content to do this to our neighbor, when we would not want to be judged by the OPINION of someone else.

We have too much of this destructive counterproductive behavior going on in the name of politics. If we are going to enforce Constitutional laws,
and hold Govt accountable for "due process and equal protections"
shouldn't we start with ourselves and make sure we respect the same standard principles.

see also ethics-commission.net

In a free society, people are free from discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT. Where we go astray is when we dictate the thoughts and actions of individuals. I have no right to tell you who to like, who to make friends with. Free people decide who they will associate with and conduct business with.


Just because you seem to have some ability to string words together and for a sentence, it does not mean that it makes any sense. Top down control? Really. That would only be true if, by top down control you mean all forms of government regulation of business and finances, all environmental regulation, all civil rights and hate crimes legislation and all social entitlement programs. Am I right? Admit it. That is what you want. To do away with all of that. Basically anarchy. No government at all.

And if we did have, THEN we would have real top down control. Top down control of the economy by the corporation Top down control of the government by the wealthy who will sure as shit own it .And top down control of morality by the religious right.

THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

As far as individual freedom goes, where the hell does that constitutional say that anyone has unlimited, unconditional freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whoever they want with no accountability. Now what you’re advocating is beyond anarchy. It’s not even civilization. Even primitive societies have, at minimum, social and cultural controls, as well as tribal rules and customs. You sound like a two year old who just wants to have what you want, when you want it and consequences be damned and to hell with anyone who comes out on the short end. Anyone who wants that is just stupid, and anyone who does not believe that it would happen if government there to prevent it is even more stupid..

Dear TheProgressivePatriot and Uncensored2008
What if we held both citizens, govt AND corporations/collective institutions
to respect the SAME Constitutional standards of
* due process and democratic right to petition to redress grievances
* limits and separation of powers
* checks and balances
* equal inclusion, representation, defense, and protection of the laws
* consent of the governed in resolving conflicts instead of bullying by exclusion or coercion

Can't we balance both freedom and responsibility not to abuse
our rights and freedoms where we start to infringe on the equal protection of others?

I see that neither the Right wants the Left abusing govt to impose agenda, political
beliefs and call it Constitutional Govt as long as it passes,
nor does the Left want the Right abusing the Constitution to justify
deregulating to the point where Corporate interests go unchecked.

The problem brought out by the Greens is the lack of check on
Corporations with both Personhood as individuals claiming civil rights
and collective influence on the same level as Govt but without the checks and balances!

So if we were to address the Corporate abuses of collective influence,
authority and resources (especially Courts and buying lawyers and judges in a legislative lobby
that monopolizes all govt if all decisions are controlled by lawyers and who sues or wins in court)
then that would address
* the Media
* the religious organizations and political parties
* the corporate lobbies and collective monopolies
* the legal and judicial monopoly
* the banking, financial and credit system and deals going on for politics there

Isn't that the problem? If collective Corporations have as much influence and power
as govts do, but without any Constitutional checks such as requiring due process, right to petition,
and not just "doing whatever they want until someone sues and WINS to make them stop by force of law or court order"

Why not address that source of "imbalance of power without check by the people"
and see how many other areas would be cleared up at the same time?

Sound good to me. What about you, Uncensored?
 
Just because you seem to have some ability to string words together and for a sentence, it does not mean that it makes any sense.

That you disagree is not the same as the sentence not making sense. My words were perfectly understandable to a reasonably intelligent person, and in fact you understand them fully.

In your arrogance, you believe that belittling is a valid form of argumentation, it is not, it is logical fallacy.

I'm belittling you? really? You need to grow a thicker skin. If I say that it does not make sense, I mean just that. No need for you to take it personally. Meanwhile, you fell the need to call Democrats "Dims" Do you really want to talk about logical fallacies.?


Top down control? Really. That would only be true if, by top down control you mean all forms of government regulation of business and finances, all environmental regulation, all civil rights and hate crimes legislation and all social entitlement programs. Am I right? Admit it. That is what you want. To do away with all of that. Basically anarchy. No government at all.

Leftism concentrates power in the hands of the central authority. In the case of the democrats, this means shifting of power and responsibility away from local and state government and into the hands of the federal government. Even on smaller scales, the desire to concentrate power into a central, ruling body is ever-present.

Wrong. I can't speak for everyone on the left but my sense is that the consensus is that there should be shared power among the various levels of government, and a balance of power among the branches of government.

Take the Peoples Republic of California, for instance. It is fully in the hands of the radical left, with no viable opposition from capitalists or civil libertarians at any level.

So what have to socialist overlords in the state done? Centralized, of course. In pursuing the collectivist dream, the socialist overlords have gone to war against suburban housing. Following the lead of the Soviet Central planners, Sacramento has stripped localities of the power to zone, in an effort to force an unwilling populace into densely populated urban centers. By denying cities the ability to permit new housing in suburbs, the Soviet Central planners seek to force people into the large cities, to renting apartments from landlords, to break the independence of property ownership.
I have no idea what is going on in Cal. Perhaps you would care to provide some documentation

This is an example of top down control - which is a universal feature leftism - the absolute belief of any leftist is that they are FAR better suited to manage your life than you are.

The whole concept of central planners lies at the heart of socialism.

"Leftism" is by no means a failure. This country was built on leftist-progressive -socialist ideas and ideals. Read some history starting to Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive movement

And if we did have, THEN we would have real top down control. Top down control of the economy by the corporation Top down control of the government by the wealthy who will sure as shit own it .And top down control of morality by the religious right.

THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

As far as individual freedom goes, where the hell does that constitutional say that anyone has unlimited, unconditional freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whoever they want with no accountability. Now what you’re advocating is beyond anarchy. It’s not even civilization. Even primitive societies have, at minimum, social and cultural controls, as well as tribal rules and customs. You sound like a two year old who just wants to have what you want, when you want it and consequences be damned and to hell with anyone who comes out on the short end. Anyone who wants that is just stupid, and anyone who does not believe that it would happen if government there to prevent it is even more stupid..

Top down control by "the corporations" is a bit of retardation socialists like to feed the ignorant fools who buy into the venom spewed by the left.

How would the "corporations" exert top down control? What power do they have to impose any control? Further, if McDonalds tries to exert control, won't Taco Bell or Burger King move to counter that control as competitors?

Retarded? Now again who is guilty of belittling someone? If those garbage food purveyors of obesity and heart disease were not regulated they would collude to maximize profit by paying slave wages, destroying the environment and serving even worse crap to people. And they would buy elected officials from the local health inspector( if there still was one) to members of congress.

See, you haven't really thought this through, you are just reciting memes from socialist sites with no critical examination on your part.

Any comments on Emilie's ideas
 
Just because you seem to have some ability to string words together and for a sentence, it does not mean that it makes any sense.

That you disagree is not the same as the sentence not making sense. My words were perfectly understandable to a reasonably intelligent person, and in fact you understand them fully.

In your arrogance, you believe that belittling is a valid form of argumentation, it is not, it is logical fallacy.

I'm belittling you? really? You need to grow a thicker skin. If I say that it does not make sense, I mean just that. No need for you to take it personally. Meanwhile, you fell the need to call Democrats "Dims" Do you really want to talk about logical fallacies.?


Top down control? Really. That would only be true if, by top down control you mean all forms of government regulation of business and finances, all environmental regulation, all civil rights and hate crimes legislation and all social entitlement programs. Am I right? Admit it. That is what you want. To do away with all of that. Basically anarchy. No government at all.

Leftism concentrates power in the hands of the central authority. In the case of the democrats, this means shifting of power and responsibility away from local and state government and into the hands of the federal government. Even on smaller scales, the desire to concentrate power into a central, ruling body is ever-present.

Wrong. I can't speak for everyone on the left but my sense is that the consensus is that there should be shared power among the various levels of government, and a balance of power among the branches of government.

Take the Peoples Republic of California, for instance. It is fully in the hands of the radical left, with no viable opposition from capitalists or civil libertarians at any level.

So what have to socialist overlords in the state done? Centralized, of course. In pursuing the collectivist dream, the socialist overlords have gone to war against suburban housing. Following the lead of the Soviet Central planners, Sacramento has stripped localities of the power to zone, in an effort to force an unwilling populace into densely populated urban centers. By denying cities the ability to permit new housing in suburbs, the Soviet Central planners seek to force people into the large cities, to renting apartments from landlords, to break the independence of property ownership.
I have no idea what is going on in Cal. Perhaps you would care to provide some documentation

This is an example of top down control - which is a universal feature leftism - the absolute belief of any leftist is that they are FAR better suited to manage your life than you are.

The whole concept of central planners lies at the heart of socialism.

"Leftism" is by no means a failure. This country was built on leftist-progressive -socialist ideas and ideals. Read some history starting to Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive movement

And if we did have, THEN we would have real top down control. Top down control of the economy by the corporation Top down control of the government by the wealthy who will sure as shit own it .And top down control of morality by the religious right.

THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

As far as individual freedom goes, where the hell does that constitutional say that anyone has unlimited, unconditional freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whoever they want with no accountability. Now what you’re advocating is beyond anarchy. It’s not even civilization. Even primitive societies have, at minimum, social and cultural controls, as well as tribal rules and customs. You sound like a two year old who just wants to have what you want, when you want it and consequences be damned and to hell with anyone who comes out on the short end. Anyone who wants that is just stupid, and anyone who does not believe that it would happen if government there to prevent it is even more stupid..

Top down control by "the corporations" is a bit of retardation socialists like to feed the ignorant fools who buy into the venom spewed by the left.

How would the "corporations" exert top down control? What power do they have to impose any control? Further, if McDonalds tries to exert control, won't Taco Bell or Burger King move to counter that control as competitors?

Retarded? Now again who is guilty of belittling someone? If those garbage food purveyors of obesity and heart disease were not regulated they would collude to maximize profit by paying slave wages, destroying the environment and serving even worse crap to people. And they would buy elected officials from the local health inspector( if there still was one) to members of congress.

See, you haven't really thought this through, you are just reciting memes from socialist sites with no critical examination on your part.

Any comments on Emilie's ideas

Quite a few, spelled out in;

Hello I am The Progressive Patriot Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
Well, if you aren't friends with anyone on the left, you probably aren't listening
to the KPFT crowd that basically "rolled their eyes" and groaned upon first hearing
that Obama was going to compete with Clinton for the nomination. Either way, ,, GROOOAAANNN

Cornell West is one of the few who can actually reach high enough on the radar
to be cited in the media as criticizing Obama. Most of the left is SILENCED by their own.

There are more ants than grasshoppers, but unfortunately
you will see the grasshoppers in the media scaring up all the attention.

Emily, I don't see George Soros or the other powers behind the left "made fun of."

Further, when the left is ordered to back Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, the usual toadies will be fanatics in their service
=========================================================================================
Building a coalition while excluding most of the productive segment would make the gaining of power difficult. Ultimately the left seeks power above all else. Identity politics such as the green movement is a manipulation technique, a divide and conquer strategy. The greens ultimately vote for the dims, even as they complain.

REGARDLESS who votes for what and who is in or out of office,
Uncensored2008 a truly independent, sustainable govt would not depend on party politics to get this person in or out.

The point is to own and build and manage business, schools and even prison and health programs
directly by the grassroots levels and work/train people all the way up to manage cities and states.

THAT is where people will be empowered equally
NOT by depending on "who gets elected in which cycle"

Govt work is CONSTANT around the clock.
Not every 4 years, not once a session.

Once you get that we the people have to be the govt we want to be in charge,
that changes the whole paradigm.

As for the Productive/Effective people vs. the ones "behind on the learning curve"
by setting up training programs, then everyone can be helped to move up the scale
regardless where we stand with social, financial or political development.

We need to QUIT exploiting the lower educated classes, and set up SELF SUSTAINING
means oof education and training where they DON'T depend on welfare, govt or charity HANDOUTS.

If people are going to truly depend on themselves to do right, and not depend on some
politician in govt fixing things for them while they run up costs doing things wrong,
the people need to be in charge of those costs by running their own district programs.

U2008 said:
We have spoken before. I am what I claim to be, a Libertarian.

I support and promote liberty - making me the arch enemy of the left. which seek collectivism and uniformity.[/quot,e]

The left want to use the Gov to cover the public so everyone is included in access.
The better way to do that is to organize collectively but NOT fight through federal govt --
instead organize around public radio, public schools, prisons and other places of likeminded populations
that DO want to work together and create a policy they can all be served under..

The left happens to use the Govt as their "default church"
the same way Christians would use their church networks to form a national or international umbrella.

So by separating beliefs by party, then each following can fund its own denomination
and only use the central govt for things all people/parties agree on.

If the Left wants power, then run all programs through the Democratic Party networks,
use that as the power base, and obviously that's enough to manage their own policies
since the gays could organize that way, then all groups should be able to defend their rights and interests.
Why not develop these DIRECTLY with the Party networks, elect, run and fund likeminded agenda
that the entire membership agrees to follow "collectively."

Why not use that "collective" identity to empower the party members and leaders
to build their own govt system and then they'v already won every battle.
Instead of wasting billions on each campaign "against opponents"
they can invest those campaign funds DIRECTLY into setting up their
own health care plans, and prison reforms, etc. they can manage by their own beliefs by party.

U said:
The left and right have diametrically opposed view for how society should operate.

The right trusts people, and seeks to let people run their own lives. The left detests people and believes that only strict controls over people will keep them from exploiting the underprivileged.

The right views individual liberty as the highest good, the left sees empowerment of the group or collective as the greatest good.

The left and right seek the opposite outcomes. We either can be a land of individual liberty where all are free to do what they will, as long as it causes no direct harm to others. Or we will be a highly managed collective where central planners will place the needs of the environment, social justice, etc. ahead of the liberty of people. We cannot be both.

That's why I am saying to separate BELIEFS by party.
If Hindus and Muslims don't agree on rituals and practice, then SEPARATE.

You don't see Buddhists and Christians "waiting until their beliefs get endorsed by courts or govt'
before practicing them and investing in schools and programs, even medical outreach to help the poor.

None of this requires "going through govt before people organize it collectively"

So likewise any of the left or right who wants to do things in a way "not all people believe in"
should have equal support to set that up for themselves independently.

Create your own business, school, hospital or medical education and outreach,
or prison correctional program.

If it's set up as a school, and people voluntarily fund and participate,
you can set it up according to your own shared standards.

I believe that's where society is heading Uncensored2008
with the diversity of beliefs, and the resources we can organize now,
community organizations can form, buy out property, and develop
their own programs and quit fighting for control with other groups.

Let everyone have their own group.
Let everyone have access to training to learn what
it takes to manage populations of a school campus, before managing
a city or state, BEFORE running for public office as a Governor Senator or President.

Since not everyone is at the same rate or stage of development
we NEED the Parties to organize people of the same LEVELS.

This is POSITIVE to be able to organize people at 6th grade
and high school levels separately from college level and post graduate work.

So if, for example, we are going to reorganize the mental health and prison
system to manage the people who need 24/7 supervision by training security and medical staff,
those participants are in a different program from the
grad students in urban development, public administration, or business management
who are learning how to build health facilities and operate a medical school
where the interns earn their education by providing services to the public.

The LEFT will be happy to turn prisons into health care
programs that more adequately study and address
mental and criminal issues instead of wasting money on systems
that don't work but just keep people poor and generate worse and worse crime.

The RIGHT will be happy to invest in BUSINESS plans
and SUSTAINABLE programs instead of handouts that keep people
dependent on charging taxpayers involuntarily.

Why not set up schools where people VOLUNTEER to invest
(unless they are convicts who owe restitution and it is part of
their penalty to pay proportional fines or labor into building such school-based programs).

Why not give taxpayers a BREAK for investing,
or let investors earn interest like the Federal Reserve investors receive.

Why does everything have to be forced and negative.
Why can't govt run by voluntary compliance by
organizing systems that people WANT to invest in.

If they are paying billions into their parties, surely that
money could go directly into the programs and reforms they are lobbying for!

By cleaning up corruption and abuses of contracts
* with PRISONS -- that can pay for health care and education for more people
* with Military contracts -- that can pay for VA reform and sustainable
support for Vets by training them in managing their own housing and health services.

So why not let the
* Libertarians and Republicans work on reorganizing the War spending to
fix up the VA where it really works for the Veterans
* Greens and Democrats redo the prisons with the goal of
freeing up resources for education and health care.
Any restitution from crime can go into developing educational
facilities in each district; and from corporate destruction of environment
can go into jobs and internships cleaning up and restoring after damage is done.
 
You can be a Constitutionalist first and a Communist second.

I don't agree. The left is dedicated to top down control of the populace and the economy in the pursuit of "fairness." This is in direct conflict to the US Constitution and the guarantees of individual liberty.



You can be a Constitutioanlist first and a Progressive second.

This is like saying you can be a Christian first, and a Catholic or Baptist second.
or a Christian first and a Unitarian second, or even a Buddhist or Muslim.

The Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and Unitarians may not agree with each other
over the Trinity, Baptism or Communion, etc.

But if they put the central faith first, and their individual rituals and practices second,
then their individual labels and denominational difference do not have to stand in the way
of being united in Christ on the central policies that count so they can operate in unison.

Uncensored2008 what I might say
is you cannot say you defend equal Constitutional rights for all people including free exercise of
BELIEF, "due process of the law" (ie innocence until proven guilty)
and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by CREED,
but then go around and violate DUE PROCESS by condemning, punishing and excluding people
in advance, based on a label, before proving what that person did wrong.

To do so would be invoking such "due process" for oneself, and equal protection of one's own beliefs and creed, while seeking to demolish the same rights of someone else based on your opinion of their beliefs. How does YOUR opinion of someone's label make THEM guilty of what YOU associate with that group? If our govt operated that way, and found us "guilty by association" we'd yell and scream. So why are we content to do this to our neighbor, when we would not want to be judged by the OPINION of someone else.

We have too much of this destructive counterproductive behavior going on in the name of politics. If we are going to enforce Constitutional laws,
and hold Govt accountable for "due process and equal protections"
shouldn't we start with ourselves and make sure we respect the same standard principles.

see also ethics-commission.net

In a free society, people are free from discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT. Where we go astray is when we dictate the thoughts and actions of individuals. I have no right to tell you who to like, who to make friends with. Free people decide who they will associate with and conduct business with.


Just because you seem to have some ability to string words together and for a sentence, it does not mean that it makes any sense. Top down control? Really. That would only be true if, by top down control you mean all forms of government regulation of business and finances, all environmental regulation, all civil rights and hate crimes legislation and all social entitlement programs. Am I right? Admit it. That is what you want. To do away with all of that. Basically anarchy. No government at all.

And if we did have, THEN we would have real top down control. Top down control of the economy by the corporation Top down control of the government by the wealthy who will sure as shit own it .And top down control of morality by the religious right.

THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

As far as individual freedom goes, where the hell does that constitutional say that anyone has unlimited, unconditional freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whoever they want with no accountability. Now what you’re advocating is beyond anarchy. It’s not even civilization. Even primitive societies have, at minimum, social and cultural controls, as well as tribal rules and customs. You sound like a two year old who just wants to have what you want, when you want it and consequences be damned and to hell with anyone who comes out on the short end. Anyone who wants that is just stupid, and anyone who does not believe that it would happen if government there to prevent it is even more stupid..

You totally lost Dante on "rich straight white people"

If you can't write or speak without using such idiocies you expose yourself as just another garden variety lunatic let loose with a keyboard or speech program
 
Good day ladies and gentlemen. I chose my name, the Progressive Patriot because to many conservatives seem to believe that they, and only they have the right to the mantle of “patriot.” In fact I’ve been told that it is an oxymoron.

I, however, I believe that progressives are the true patriots because of the fact that we have a vision of this country being truly great in all ways for all of our people I want America to be respected in the world as a leader in science, diplomacy, education, environmental protection and the evolving standards of human rights. I this to be a great and just country for all people, Not just the rich, not just the native born and white people, not just for heterosexuals, not just for Christians, and not just for males. FOR ALL PEOPLE. Patriotism is progress and progress is patriotism

At the time of the founding of our nation, at the time of the American Revolution, the rebels were known as the patriots. Those patriots were not content with the status quo. They wanted to move ahead, they sought to build a nation based on the ideal of freedom and democracy. Yes, they sought to throw off the yoke of an oppressive government , and yes, conservatives today-those who call themselves “patriots”-also seek to limit the influence of what they see as an oppressive government.

However, I will submit to you that today’s source of oppression is perpetrated, not by government per se, but by those forces within government as well as outside of government who seek to thwart progress, and worse, undue much of what has been accomplished in areas such as labor, civil rights, education, science and the environment. Patriotism is progress. Progress is patriotism.

Should have read the OP first:

let's boil it down:
"Not just the rich, native born, white, heterosexual, Christian, males." and "oppression"

what century are you living in? Are you rewriting some left wing commie rag?
 
THINK ABOUT what you are advocating. Government for and by the rich straight white people. How the hell is that constitutional?

You totally lost Dante on "rich straight white people"

If you can't write or speak without using such idiocies you expose yourself as just another garden variety lunatic let loose with a keyboard or speech program

Dear Dante and TheProgressivePatriot
Would it help to speak in more specifics.
Let's talk about the uproar caused by Donald Trump as one of these "stereotypical rich straight white people"
who believes the solution to stopping illegal immigration is to start by building a wall as a symbol of NO.

OK, so what is going to stop the
* illegal trafficking
* sweatshop and sex slave market
* gangs, cults and drug addiction and demand
* exploitation of poor workers with no claim to land to
get out the cycle of poverty, oppression and economic/political disparity

Just building a wall does not solve any of the causes or context around the problems.
Why not build city-states for the displaced workers to claim legal residency?

I am presenting the proposal to build educational and service internship complexes,
including military prisons, teaching hospitals and production facilities to replace sweatshops
and bring production back to the US Mexican border:
Earned Amnesty
based on the sustainable campus model
created, authored and passed into federal law
by POOR BLACK public housing tenants and volunteers

Dante and @TheProgressPatriot
I would be HONORED like there is no tomorrow but today
if you would join me in issuing a Public Challenge and BET
to Donald Trump that this campus solution would bring together
poor and rich, black and white, left and right on correcting the
problems with crime, trafficking, drugs illegal immigration and other
corporate civil and criminal abuses violations and corruption.

I would like to make a 10 million dollar bet it will work
better than just mouthing off about building a wall.

And if this solution works better, then Trump would be
in charge of organizing the financing of it, through microloans
or restitution paid back for convicted violations, where the
workers and immigrants who want to earn legal status can
invest their resources and OWN the property and programs as shareholders
and legal citizens under an organized business plan monitored through
a school program similar to work-study registration and student loans.

He can be in charge of a solution, if we can prove this works better
than merely punitive measures that don't solve the economic or political problems
causing the glut and trafficking across our borders, affecting people worldwide.

Wanna make a bet? That regardless of people's views of poor minorities
or rich corporate conglomerates, we CAN work together and solve the problems ANYWAY.

Our love of our country and fellow man is GREATER than our differences.
we cannot let this differences stand in the way of working solutions,
when it is our differences that makes us such a rich, diverse nation.

Thanks and hats off to you!
Tell me if you are ready to do this, and we'll do it.

I've got friends with public radio ready to take on
big things, so why not???[/QUOTE]
 
Good day ladies and gentlemen. I chose my name, the Progressive Patriot because to many conservatives seem to believe that they, and only they have the right to the mantle of “patriot.” In fact I’ve been told that it is an oxymoron.

I, however, I believe that progressives are the true patriots because of the fact that we have a vision of this country being truly great in all ways for all of our people I want America to be respected in the world as a leader in science, diplomacy, education, environmental protection and the evolving standards of human rights. I this to be a great and just country for all people, Not just the rich, not just the native born and white people, not just for heterosexuals, not just for Christians, and not just for males. FOR ALL PEOPLE. Patriotism is progress and progress is patriotism

At the time of the founding of our nation, at the time of the American Revolution, the rebels were known as the patriots. Those patriots were not content with the status quo. They wanted to move ahead, they sought to build a nation based on the ideal of freedom and democracy. Yes, they sought to throw off the yoke of an oppressive government , and yes, conservatives today-those who call themselves “patriots”-also seek to limit the influence of what they see as an oppressive government.

However, I will submit to you that today’s source of oppression is perpetrated, not by government per se, but by those forces within government as well as outside of government who seek to thwart progress, and worse, undue much of what has been accomplished in areas such as labor, civil rights, education, science and the environment. Patriotism is progress. Progress is patriotism.

Should have read the OP first:

let's boil it down:
"Not just the rich, native born, white, heterosexual, Christian, males." and "oppression"

what century are you living in? Are you rewriting some left wing commie rag?

Hey D RE what century we're in.
What about what State?

I live in Texas where the Confederate Southern Cross is one of the
historic Six Flags over Texas.
The reality I live in every day, which has its strengths,
is the very one being attacked in the media,
The Good O'l Boy Conservative mentality to let all the different
groups do whatever they want on their own
and keep political agenda out of govt.

And my own boyfriend gets jumped on for being one of
these white males towing the GOP party line (even though
he is NOT Republican and NOT Christian).

When I bring up Constitutional education as a Democrat
I GET BLANK STARES

So this is the culture gap, the reality we are talking about.
I live that every day, and even have an entire thread on here
dedicated to accusing me of being a White Racist for
even suggesting reorganizing Freedmen's Town as a
base for training minorities in Constitutional govt and
financial/business management on a longterm sustainable basis.

That was just too "WHITE" an idea to come from
someone claiming to be an Asian volunteering in
a national historic Freed Slave church district.

Whatever this "WHITE" culture is, Dante,
people are yelling about it and projecting blame
for the economic and political disparity it REPRESENTS.

Regardless if it is REAL, it REPRESENTS the mentality and
the DIVISION going on, and we need to address THAT problem.

I've even been accused of enabling or becoming engrained
in it myself, whatever this rightwing Republican WHITE thing is.

G.T. and Impenitent both jumped on me and now
have given up arguing with me about it.

Whatever this is, real or imagined, I am even
being ACCUSED of promoting it, this white bigotry
anti-cultural diversity mindset that projects
"white man's culture" onto everyone else.

Everyone projects their expectations and values,
but it's the White culture that is jumped on for
being too dominating and precluding equal value on any others.

Like if you have a group of people, whether lost in the hall at jury duty
or running a meeting where the person who was supposed to lead didn't show up,
they automatically turn to the older White man in the group to take charge
and follow his instructions what to do.

Why is that? I don't know but that is what people are talking about.
THAT predominance or social conditioning expecting White Men to be in charge.

Still happens to this day.
 

Forum List

Back
Top