Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Swing and a missThe era before progressives was an era of subjugation of the blacks, Natives women, children and certain nationalities. It was an era of possessions of lands and Earthly riches by force. It was an era of economic turmoil by many factors, but mostly through land speculation. It was an era of poverty and monopolies which would kill a human to get what they wanted. Labor was abused to serve the rich and segregation was the norm of the day.
This is what PC wants to go back to. Why she would not even be able to vote in her dream world. The USA became a world powerhouse by the very reigns of progressive leadership that she wants to cut and she believes everything progressive/liberal/democratic is bad.
Well I have one phrase to educate herself with. You would be better off freeing your mind than trying to take us back to a cruel world of republicanism.
No, Stalin and the other early Progressives weren't like that. They killed their own.
in your OPs the evil traitor is always the LIBERAL.
thanks for your 2 min hate.
When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.
Here:
"For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as progressives repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.
Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action, p. 17.
a. Charles Merriam: The individualistic ideas of the natural rights school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.
Merriam, A History of American Political Theories, p. 307.
3. Lets be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any right at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in nature and natures God. Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.
a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
There were a fairly large number of replies .none of those Liberals, or Progressives, or Obama supporters, challenged the idea!
Is there not ANY contumely Leftists will not recoil from??
No .rather, they accepted the role of a slave, a dog .sitting up and begging, inured to the characterization!! Yes master, please, may I speak? Or even dream?
Among those trained, schooled, conditioned....and, yes, brainwashed....there is no self-respect, no demand that they be acknowledged to be worth something as an individual.
Disheartening.
Disgusting.
The warnings weren't enough:
"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.
The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity."
Orwell
The era before progressives was an era of subjugation of the blacks, Natives women, children and certain nationalities. It was an era of possessions of lands and Earthly riches by force. It was an era of economic turmoil by many factors, but mostly through land speculation. It was an era of poverty and monopolies which would kill a human to get what they wanted. Labor was abused to serve the rich and segregation was the norm of the day.
This is what PC wants to go back to. Why she would not even be able to vote in her dream world. The USA became a world powerhouse by the very reigns of progressive leadership that she wants to cut and she believes everything progressive/liberal/democratic is bad.
Well I have one phrase to educate herself with. You would be better off freeing your mind than trying to take us back to a cruel world of republicanism.
If we had any self respect, we would avoid your threads.
When you peel back the onion, all they really care about is the free gubmint stuff.
once again for you lying loons...
red states take more money from the feds than they put in
blue states put in more money than they take...
tell ya what.. stop living off of OUR dime.
thanks for playing.
now please go back to collecting your government check and using our government medical services.... while you drive on government roads and use government-subsidized gasoline... and eat government subsidized farm products...
When you peel back the onion, all they really care about is the free gubmint stuff.
Yes , there is Polly Parrot, mimicing the so called great idealism which the GOP has built their house upon. Such a rotten structure of hate and envy. Please tell me what free stuff I get, I would like to know considering I do not qualify for any free gubmit stuff. But you probably know, since that is the best education you have, and the ability to embrace. Keep on with that stupid statement and the GOP's house will continue to be vacant after the next presidential elections.
The era before progressives was an era of subjugation of the blacks, Natives women, children and certain nationalities. It was an era of possessions of lands and Earthly riches by force. It was an era of economic turmoil by many factors, but mostly through land speculation. It was an era of poverty and monopolies which would kill a human to get what they wanted. Labor was abused to serve the rich and segregation was the norm of the day.
This is what PC wants to go back to. Why she would not even be able to vote in her dream world. The USA became a world powerhouse by the very reigns of progressive leadership that she wants to cut and she believes everything progressive/liberal/democratic is bad.
Well I have one phrase to educate herself with. You would be better off freeing your mind than trying to take us back to a cruel world of republicanism.
No, Stalin and the other early Progressives weren't like that. They killed their own.
stalin wasn't a progressive or a liberal...
damn, you're stupid.
and before having a conversation where you toss words around, you might find it helpful to actually know what the definitions of those words are.
but it's always good to have someone who knows nothing about political philosophy or the differences between different ideologies spew nonsense like you do.
When I added the OP, [Liberals: Where You Went Wrong ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.
You mean like equal rights to marry whom you love and the absolute control over the choice of when and if to reproduce?
As usual, it is the right that seeks to take basic rights away from Americans. In fact, every day or so, one of the rabid rw's here posts against rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
You rw's all seem to live in the same glass house.
When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.
Here:
"For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as progressives repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.
Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action, p. 17.
a. Charles Merriam: The individualistic ideas of the natural rights school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.
Merriam, A History of American Political Theories, p. 307.
3. Lets be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any right at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in nature and natures God. Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.
a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
There were a fairly large number of replies .none of those Liberals, or Progressives, or Obama supporters, challenged the idea!
Is there not ANY contumely Leftists will not recoil from??
No .rather, they accepted the role of a slave, a dog .sitting up and begging, inured to the characterization!! Yes master, please, may I speak? Or even dream?
Among those trained, schooled, conditioned....and, yes, brainwashed....there is no self-respect, no demand that they be acknowledged to be worth something as an individual.
Disheartening.
Disgusting.
The warnings weren't enough:
"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.
The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity."
Orwell
your hate will tear your health to shreds
When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights.
And yet, oddly, you have been unable to refute her points.in your OPs the evil traitor is always the LIBERAL.
thanks for your 2 min hate.
Broken record syndrome. Good thing no one takes her seriously except for Daveman and Crusader Frank, Dumb and Dumber.
Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights.
Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?
Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights.
Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?
You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.
This is wrong.
Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights.
Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?
You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.
This is wrong.
You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.
When you peel back the onion, all they really care about is the free gubmint stuff.
once again for you lying loons...
red states take more money from the feds than they put in
blue states put in more money than they take...
tell ya what.. stop living off of OUR dime.
thanks for playing.
now please go back to collecting yoru government check and using our government medical services.... while you drive on government roads and use government-subsidized gasoline... and eat government subsidized farm products...
This is largely to support their disproportionately large gubmint dependent minority populations, and said earmarks are largely the doing of the Liberals.
You have failed.
LOL
