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.
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
Better starve free than be a fat slave.
Aesop
Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?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.
There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.
I define the core of self-respect to be the unwillingness to lie to one's self, I know I do not have all the answers, I know that I may even be wrong on many points as I have been wrong in the past, but one thing I am sure of, I have never been wrong in my refusal to hang on to treasured beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think for myself, I do not automatically accept the opinions of the often self appointed "liberal" leaders and make them my own and I certainly have grown out of the trap of being a political reactionary because that only makes a person easy to control.
That point leads to another core of self-respect: self-control. Political reactionaries such as yourself lack self control or else they would not be reactionaries. Many here might read some sketchy blog post about some hated opposition leader bent on dastardly deeds and terrible goals and just accept it and then rush here to repost it for all to react mindlessly to, we see it all day here, an entire Internet industry devoted to shoveling likely sounding garbage into the minds people who do not have the self control to not react to things in a knee-jerk fashion.
You ask where is my self-respect? It's there every time to brutally examine and re-examine every single piece of information that goes into what is collectively called my belief system, it's there every time someone wants to me mindlessly react to some piece of shitty propaganda and it's especially there whenever someone wants me to be afraid and controllable rather than courageous and true to myself. Where the hell is your self-respect? I doubt you have ever put as much thought into it as I have writing these three paragraphs, never mind the lifetime I have spent sifting through the garbage looking for what is true and correct in the world.
Natural rights are the rights that all humans are born with, and that most people agree are conferred upon them by God. If not by God, then by universal concensus.
The only people that deny that we are born with certain inalienable rights are the people who want to take them from you. The people who believe humans (particularly humans they don't like) are animals, and should be treated as such.
Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?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.
PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?
I define the core of self-respect to be the unwillingness to lie to one's self, I know I do not have all the answers, I know that I may even be wrong on many points as I have been wrong in the past, but one thing I am sure of, I have never been wrong in my refusal to hang on to treasured beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think for myself, I do not automatically accept the opinions of the often self appointed "liberal" leaders and make them my own and I certainly have grown out of the trap of being a political reactionary because that only makes a person easy to control.
That point leads to another core of self-respect: self-control. Political reactionaries such as yourself lack self control or else they would not be reactionaries. Many here might read some sketchy blog post about some hated opposition leader bent on dastardly deeds and terrible goals and just accept it and then rush here to repost it for all to react mindlessly to, we see it all day here, an entire Internet industry devoted to shoveling likely sounding garbage into the minds people who do not have the self control to not react to things in a knee-jerk fashion.
You ask where is my self-respect? It's there every time to brutally examine and re-examine every single piece of information that goes into what is collectively called my belief system, it's there every time someone wants to me mindlessly react to some piece of shitty propaganda and it's especially there whenever someone wants me to be afraid and controllable rather than courageous and true to myself. Where the hell is your self-respect? I doubt you have ever put as much thought into it as I have writing these three paragraphs, never mind the lifetime I have spent sifting through the garbage looking for what is true and correct in the world.
That's the fundamental problem with progressives. Everything is self-centered.
Human rights are the polar opposite of being obsessed with yourself.
I define the core of self-respect to be the unwillingness to lie to one's self, I know I do not have all the answers, I know that I may even be wrong on many points as I have been wrong in the past, but one thing I am sure of, I have never been wrong in my refusal to hang on to treasured beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think for myself, I do not automatically accept the opinions of the often self appointed "liberal" leaders and make them my own and I certainly have grown out of the trap of being a political reactionary because that only makes a person easy to control.
That point leads to another core of self-respect: self-control. Political reactionaries such as yourself lack self control or else they would not be reactionaries. Many here might read some sketchy blog post about some hated opposition leader bent on dastardly deeds and terrible goals and just accept it and then rush here to repost it for all to react mindlessly to, we see it all day here, an entire Internet industry devoted to shoveling likely sounding garbage into the minds people who do not have the self control to not react to things in a knee-jerk fashion.
You ask where is my self-respect? It's there every time to brutally examine and re-examine every single piece of information that goes into what is collectively called my belief system, it's there every time someone wants to me mindlessly react to some piece of shitty propaganda and it's especially there whenever someone wants me to be afraid and controllable rather than courageous and true to myself. Where the hell is your self-respect? I doubt you have ever put as much thought into it as I have writing these three paragraphs, never mind the lifetime I have spent sifting through the garbage looking for what is true and correct in the world.
That's the fundamental problem with progressives. Everything is self-centered.
Human rights are the polar opposite of being obsessed with yourself.
Now there is a massive piece of of projection as well as a very topical example of missing the point. Only a reactionary such as yourself could take a post like mine and take to mean that I am self obsessed. No, after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that I am not even close to being the center of the universe and the entire reason for creation. Information is like a set of tools used to deal with the world and mine are sharp and well oiled, unlike your rusty pile of useless crap.
Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?
You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.
This is wrong.
PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?
You're confusing the granting of a right with the defense of the right or enforcement of law.
I define the core of self-respect to be the unwillingness to lie to one's self, I know I do not have all the answers, I know that I may even be wrong on many points as I have been wrong in the past, but one thing I am sure of, I have never been wrong in my refusal to hang on to treasured beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think for myself, I do not automatically accept the opinions of the often self appointed "liberal" leaders and make them my own and I certainly have grown out of the trap of being a political reactionary because that only makes a person easy to control.
That point leads to another core of self-respect: self-control. Political reactionaries such as yourself lack self control or else they would not be reactionaries. Many here might read some sketchy blog post about some hated opposition leader bent on dastardly deeds and terrible goals and just accept it and then rush here to repost it for all to react mindlessly to, we see it all day here, an entire Internet industry devoted to shoveling likely sounding garbage into the minds people who do not have the self control to not react to things in a knee-jerk fashion.
You ask where is my self-respect? It's there every time to brutally examine and re-examine every single piece of information that goes into what is collectively called my belief system, it's there every time someone wants to me mindlessly react to some piece of shitty propaganda and it's especially there whenever someone wants me to be afraid and controllable rather than courageous and true to myself. Where the hell is your self-respect? I doubt you have ever put as much thought into it as I have writing these three paragraphs, never mind the lifetime I have spent sifting through the garbage looking for what is true and correct in the world.
That's the fundamental problem with progressives. Everything is self-centered.
Human rights are the polar opposite of being obsessed with yourself.
Now there is a massive piece of of projection as well as a very topical example of missing the point. Only a reactionary such as yourself could take a post like mine and take to mean that I am self obsessed. No, after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that I am not even close to being the center of the universe and the entire reason for creation. Information is like a set of tools used to deal with the world and mine are sharp and well oiled, unlike your rusty pile of useless crap.
And the second paragraph exists only to establish that your thoughts and comprehension are superior to those of others.
That's the fundamental problem with progressives. Everything is self-centered.
Human rights are the polar opposite of being obsessed with yourself.
Now there is a massive piece of of projection as well as a very topical example of missing the point. Only a reactionary such as yourself could take a post like mine and take to mean that I am self obsessed. No, after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that I am not even close to being the center of the universe and the entire reason for creation. Information is like a set of tools used to deal with the world and mine are sharp and well oiled, unlike your rusty pile of useless crap.
Let's see...
You referenced yourself 20 times in three paragraphs.
Not self obsessed at all.
PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?
You're confusing the granting of a right with the defense of the right or enforcement of law.
Governments don't grant rights. We grant ourselves rights by the government we choose. You're confusing who's granting what. Government is an inanimate thing controlled by US. If it's not doing what you want, work to change it.
OP- Absolute brainwashed hater idiocy LOL. Read something. You're voting against your interests and the country's, chump of the greedy idiot lying rich. See sig, dumbbell.
