Progressive Greatest Perversion

[occupied]

If there is not a Liberal=communist correlation to Godwin's law there ought to be.

"Godwin's Law" is just a scam designed to protect liberals from being exposed for what they really are: Nazis.

It only came into existence after the right started pointing out the stunning similarities between liberalism and fascism. Prior to that, liberals accused conservatives of being fascists and Nazis with abandon, and you never heard a peep about "Godwin's law."

That would be a pretty good joke if you did not tragically believe it completely. Communists=nazis=liberals is pretty retarded, not even interested in your explanation if you have one.

 

[bripat9643]

If there is not a Liberal=communist correlation to Godwin's law there ought to be.

"Godwin's Law" is just a scam designed to protect liberals from being exposed for what they really are: Nazis.

It only came into existence after the right started pointing out the stunning similarities between liberalism and fascism. Prior to that, liberals accused conservatives of being fascists and Nazis with abandon, and you never heard a peep about "Godwin's law."

That would be a pretty good joke if you did not tragically believe it completely. Communists=nazis=liberals is pretty retarded, not even interested in your explanation if you have one.

It's "retarded" only to those who don't anyone to know the truth. The fact is that the liberal economic agenda and the Nazi economic agenda are identical. They both favor heavy government control over nominally "private" industry. They both favor government ownership of "key" industries, like healthcare and energy. They are both anti-Semitic. They both endorse the idea that the citizen exists for the benefit of the state, and not the other way around.

Who does the following sound like?

NAZI party platform - 1920

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.
We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
Breaking the Servitude of Interest

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.

20. In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions— available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latter’s position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievement of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

 

[occupied]

Yawn, I've had this historically challenged conversation with people like you before and I have no interest in attempting to enlighten you but maybe you can also explain how liberals are also like martians or demons from the 9th circle or some other horrible thing. Give it a rest.

 

[bripat9643]

Yawn, I've had this historically challenged conversation with people like you before and I have no interest in attempting to enlighten you but maybe you can also explain how liberals are also like martians or demons from the 9th circle or some other horrible thing. Give it a rest.

Yeah, I'm sure you did have this conversation before. You don't want to have it again because you get your ass kicked every time. The facts aren't on your side.

 

[code1211]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

Nonsense.

There’s been no greater ally of the Constitution and civil liberties than liberals. During the 50s and 60s alone progressive jurists fought for the rights of average Americans against conservative efforts to expand the size of government and its authority:

Brown V. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas - 1954 - Civil Rights (14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause)Linda Brown, a student in the segregated Topeka Kansas school district had to walk 5 miles to school each day. Across the train tracks from her house there was a white school she was unable to attend. Oliver Brown enlisted the help of the NAACP to ensure that his daughter was able to go to the best school possible. Thurgood Marshall, then head of the NAACP, challenged the segregation of the school claiming that the laws violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution that said that all citizens were to receive "equal protection under the law." The state argued that Plessey v Ferguson had set the precedent and that the law was clear on this point.
The court affirmed the position of Marshall and the Brown family and overturned the precedent set by the Plessey decision(that schools could be separate but equal). Justice Earl Warren claimed that "in the eyes of the law, justice was color-blind." In ruling in favor of Brown the court ordered the integration of America "with all deliberate speed." The civil rights movement had begun!

Mapp v. Ohio - 1962 - Search and Seizure (4th and 14th Amendments, illegal evidence and Due Process Clause)Dollree Mapp was suspected of having information in her home that would implicate a suspected bomber. The police came to her home and asked if they might search the residence. Ms. Mapp called her lawyer and was advised to ask for a warrant. The police did not have a warrant and were asked to leave. Hours later the police returned and forcibly entered the residence. Ms. Mapp demanded to see the warrant and a piece of paper was waved in her face. Ms. Mapp grabbed the paper and tucked it in her blouse. A struggle ensued where Ms. Mapp was knocked to the ground as police retrieved the supposed warrant. Outside Ms. Mapp's attorney arrived on the scene but was prevented from entering the residence. The police found pornographic materials in the house and Ms. Mapp was arrested for possession of lewd materials. Ms. Mapp was convicted of this crime. Ms.. Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that the search of her home was in violation of her rights. Admitting evidence gained by illegal searches was permitted by some States before Mapp.
The court ruled that the evidence obtained in the search was inadmissible because it was seized in an illegal search. In ruling this way the court created the "exclusionary rule" which makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in court. This ruling upheld the principles of the fourth amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright - 1963 - Right To Counsel (6th Amendment) Gideon was accused of breaking into a poolroom. Gideon, an ex con, was too poor to pay for a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. The court refused to grant his request stating that lawyers were only provided for those accused of committing capital crimes like murder, rape, etc. Gideon was tried and was forced to defend himself. While in prison Gideon hand wrote a plea to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. At this point he received representation from lawyers who were attracted to his case. Gideon argued that his right to a fair trial was violated.
Gideon's position was upheld. The Court ruled that all citizens must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one. This is regardless of the type of crime.

Escobedo v Illinois - 1964 - Right To Counsel (6th Amendment) Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murder and brought to the police station. He repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but was never allowed out of the interrogation room. His lawyer even went so far as to come to the police station in search of him, but was denied access. Escobedo then confessed while under interrogation to firing the shot that killed the victim. As a result, he was soon convicted. Escobedo appealed to the Supreme Court and it overturned the conviction. The Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to illegal confessions and ruled that Escobedo's confession should not have been allowed in as evidence. The Court also defined the "Escobedo Rule" which holds that individuals have the right to an attorney when an "investigation is no longer a general inquiry...but has begun to focus on a particular suspect..." The ruling went on to detail that (Where) the suspect has been taken into custody...the suspect has requested...his lawyer, and the police have not...warned him of his right to remain silent, the accused has been denied...counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment."

Miranda v Arizona - 1966 - Rights of the Accused (5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments)Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnaping and rape of a young woman. Upon arrest Miranda was questioned for two hours. He never asked for a lawyer and eventually confessed to the crime. Later, however, a lawyer representing Miranda appealed the case to the Supreme Court claiming that Miranda's rights had been violated. Miranda was acquitted. The Court ruled that citizens must be informed of their rights prior to questioning. Any evidence or statement obtained prior to a suspect being read his/her rights is inadmissible. This has led to what is commonly referred to as one's "Miranda Rights" having to be read upon questioning or arrest. They are: "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can, and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you." Miranda was later killed in a barroom brawl, stabbed to death.

Engle v Vitale - 1962 - Separation of Church and State (1st Amendment Establishment Clause)In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that the prayer be said by students in public schools on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.
The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first amendment. Prayer in schools was to be considered unconstitutional.

Abington School District v. Schempp - 1963 - Separation of Church and State (1st Amendment Establishment Clause)This case involved a Pennsylvania law requiring that at least ten Bible verses be read in public schools at the beginning of each day. A family in Abington(Schempp), sued the school district for violating the first amendment of the constitution. Just as in Engle v Vitale, religious instruction in school was deemed to violate the 1st Amendment of the constitution.

Tinker v. Des Moines - 1969 - Symbolic Speech (1st Amendment)Several students and parents in Des Moines organized a protest of the Vietnam War. Students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest. When the school found out they warned all the students and parents that anyone wearing the armbands would be suspended. The Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended. Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filed suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The school claimed that the armbands were disruptive.
The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech."

Katz v. United States - 1961 - Search and Seizure (Wiretaps) (4th Amendment Unreasonable Search and Seizure) Katz was arrested for illegal gambling after using a public phone to transmit "gambling information." The FBI had attached an electronic listening/recording device onto the outside of the public phone booth that Katz habitually used. They argued that this constituted a legal action since they never actually entered the phone booth. The Court, however, ruled in favor of Katz, stating the Fourth Amendment allowed for the protection of a person and not just a person's property against illegal searches. Whatever a citizen "seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 (14th Amendment, Due Process Clause) In this case the Court struck down a state law that prohibited the use of contraceptives, even among married couples. The Court proclaimed (critics said “invented”) a “right of privacy” that soon provided the basis for decisions protecting women’s abortion rights. The decision is significant for raising more careful inspection the concept of “unenumerated rights” in the 9th Amendment, later central to Roe v. Wade 1973(which legalized abortions in the United States)

SOME MAJOR DECISIONS OF THE WARREN COURT

What escapes you is that activist judges had to interpret the Constitution to allow the laws of discrimination and segregation to exist in the first place.

If the Constitution was interpreted in strict, constructionist terms, the words of the Bill of Rights would have been equally applied to all people.

Without activists changing the law to make it better, all decisions from Dred Scot forward would have been ruled to conclude that Alll Men Are Created equal and that all men should be treated equally before the law.

Liberals are activists and always rule on law in a way that perverts it for the fashion of the day. Is that fashion or fascion?

 

[code1211]

rw's have no clue what "The Modern Liberal" believes.

True. Of course facts are anathema to rightist dogma.

Another 'we're right and you're totally wrong' argument...classic.

Both parties and their members embedded in the establishment love big corporate-welfare government.

The proof is in the pudding. When was the last time the size of the Federal Government decreased?

The ‘size’ of the Federal government is a consequence of America’s success, growth, and development as a modern First World industrialized Super Power – it is a consequence, not a cause. As pragmatists. liberals understand this, accept it as neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ but as a phenomenon of the evolution of the American Nation.

The Constitution, its case law, and the people’s right to avail themselves of the courts to seek remedy to government excess renders the question of the ‘size’ of government moot.

It is the erosion of the Constitution and its case law by conservative ideologues – attempting to turn back the hands of time – that presents the greatest threat to our civil liberties, not the ‘size’ of government.

You're wandering away from my understanding of what "Make no law" means.

 

[code1211]

If there is not a Liberal=communist correlation to Godwin's law there ought to be.

"Godwin's Law" is just a scam designed to protect liberals from being exposed for what they really are: Nazis.

It only came into existence after the right started pointing out the stunning similarities between liberalism and fascism. Prior to that, liberals accused conservatives of being fascists and Nazis with abandon, and you never heard a peep about "Godwin's law."

That would be a pretty good joke if you did not tragically believe it completely. Communists=nazis=liberals is pretty retarded, not even interested in your explanation if you have one.

Naziism, by definition, demands central control of industry by the state.

Communism, in practice, exercises central control of industry by the state.

Liberalism, in the USA, exerts expanding central control of industry by the state.

Conservatism, in the USA, strives to relax the central control of industry by the state.

Clearly, the goals of Liberalism, Communism and Naziism are parallel as those goals relate to central control. The outcomes of both Communism and Naziism are not, apparently, to your liking. This causes you to strenuously deny the similarities to Liberalism.

This reaction is a mistake and a rationalization.

Your response should be to examine the parallels more closely and try to figure out where Liberalism is taking you.

 

[initforme]

There is a large group of people like myself (worked hard, saved, did things by the book like we are told to do) who are disenfranchised. We see the far left as too far out there and want everything handed to them. We see the conservative party as strictly for the 1 percent (this becomes more evident every day. we see the tea party as a radical group). At this time we are waiting for a person who has not made a million dollars in their lives to run the country to make it fair for all which it is not now.

 

[editec]

So your point is that you don't like what the Chinese COMMUNISTS call their nation?

So noted.

Thanks for the update.

Cause what you think about this subject is truly of monumental importance to us all, Frank.

 

[BlindBoo]

China, N. Korea are Military Dictatorships. Our representative democracy is a liberal/progressive idea. It is the pseudo-conservative movenment that is moving toward a militaristic statist type governement in this country.

 

[freedombecki]

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. Progressivism is often viewed by its advocates to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.
The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

Wikipedia is way too skewed idealogically to the left, and idealogues emphasize it to underscore and further skew it. I just enlarged the catchword that they as Democrat sympathizers and promoters believe ameliorates them from the responsibility of the ridiculous statement, and to think nobody will notice their extremist position.

Truth?

Progressives are not progressive, they are reactionary in fact to Conservatives, who prefer realism to progressive make-believe.

 

[Liability]

China, N. Korea are Military Dictatorships. Our representative democracy is a liberal/progressive idea. It is the pseudo-conservative movenment that is moving toward a militaristic statist type governement in this country.

BlindPoo's post was trite nonsense.

China, N. Korea are Military Dictatorships.

True.

Our representative democracy is a liberal/progressive idea.

False.

It is the pseudo-conservative movenment [sic]that is moving toward a militaristic statist type governement [sic] in this country.

False.

I have no idea what the fuck BlindPoo intends to be discussing when he talks about pseudo conservatives. Sounds like the premise of a good old fashioned straw man.

But the reality is that it is the modern American "liberal" who is the STATIST.

Actual conservatives want nothing to do with a militaristic government -- much less a Statist one.

 

[BlindBoo]

China, N. Korea are Military Dictatorships. Our representative democracy is a liberal/progressive idea. It is the pseudo-conservative movenment that is moving toward a militaristic statist type governement in this country.

BlindPoo's post was trite nonsense.

China, N. Korea are Military Dictatorships.

True.

Our representative democracy is a liberal/progressive idea.

False.

It is the pseudo-conservative movenment [sic]that is moving toward a militaristic statist type governement [sic] in this country.

False.

I have no idea what the fuck BlindPoo intends to be discussing when he talks about pseudo conservatives. Sounds like the premise of a good old fashioned straw man.

But the reality is that it is the modern American "liberal" who is the STATIST.

Actual conservatives want nothing to do with a militaristic government -- much less a Statist one.

I can agree with your last statment, but there are very few actual conservatives in the Republican party right now as it is filled (just like the Democrat party) with tax and spend liberal military adventurists.

Pseudo-conservatives

"....He believes himself to be living in a world in which he is spied upon, plotted against, betrayed, and very likely destined for total ruin. He feels that his liberties have been arbitrarily and outrageously invaded. He is opposed to almost everything that has happened in American politics for the past twenty years. He hates the very thought of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He is disturbed deeply by American participation in the United Nations, which he can see only as a sinister organization. He sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world —...."

The American Scholar: The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt - Richard Hofstader

 

[CrusaderFrank]

China, N. Korea are Military Dictatorships. Our representative democracy is a liberal/progressive idea. It is the pseudo-conservative movenment that is moving toward a militaristic statist type governement in this country.

Our government is a purely Conservative idea, one that honors and trusts the individual and seeks to empower him as much as possible.

Progressivism, starting with the Income Tax and continuing to FDR centrally planning farm policy to LBJ and Obamacare all seeks to crush the individual and make him subservient to the state...just like in NoKo, China and Vietnam

 

[editec]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

Where do you get these twisted distortions of reality, Frank?

Are you a wounded veteran of the LSD wars of the late 60's or something?

Progressives named it the People's Republic of China?

Seriously man, your confusion about progressives (you know...people like Teddy Roosevelt) is kind of a stretch, man...even for you.

 

[G.T.]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

Where do you get these twisted distortions of reality, Frank?

Are you a wounded veteran of the LSD wars of the late 60's or something?

Progressives named it the People's Republic of China?

Seriously man, your confusion about progressives (you know...people like Teddy Roosevelt) is kind of a stretch, man...even for you.

agree with all but last 3 words

 

[Liability]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

Where do you get these twisted distortions of reality, Frank?

Are you a wounded veteran of the LSD wars of the late 60's or something?

Progressives named it the People's Republic of China?

Seriously man, your confusion about progressives (you know...people like Teddy Roosevelt) is kind of a stretch, man...even for you.

YOU just don't grasp what "progressive" really means. That's all. YOU buy into the fraud that it has some meaning other than "liberal." It really doesn't.

 

[WatertheTree]

Rent seeking liberals on both sides of the isle are destroying this country. To continue to call yourself free and celebrate the fourth of july is now a sad farce.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nowhere is the perversion of Progressive ideology greater than in how they handle their greatest successes.

For example, when they win the call their nation the "Peoples Republic" (China, North Korea and Vietnam). Of course, the people in these "People Republics" are nothing but slaves to an all powerful government. Until the governments adopted Free Market reforms, people starved by the million.

In the USA, we are, or were, a genuine People's Republic, our Constitution limited the power and reach of the government. And what do Progressives seek to do here? To undermine the people freedoms in the one genuine Peoples Republic on the planet and have an all-powerful government that will control and direct every human activity, just like the Progressive Peoples Republic of China, Korea and Vietnam

It's perverted.

Where do you get these twisted distortions of reality, Frank?

Are you a wounded veteran of the LSD wars of the late 60's or something?

Progressives named it the People's Republic of China?

Seriously man, your confusion about progressives (you know...people like Teddy Roosevelt) is kind of a stretch, man...even for you.

Dingell, Waters, Obama...Progressives all.

 

[Dragon]

'The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state

Mark Levin is also a liar.