The catastrophic failure of progressive policy

[regent]

The real question is how do we stop progress? If we look at history It seems that some humans are constantly trying to improve their existence by making changes. It must frighten the hell out of some people that nothing they seem to do can stop the changes. And so progress goes on. Was it was the development of the human brain?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The real question is how do we stop progress? If we look at history It seems that some humans are constantly trying to improve their existence by making changes. It must frighten the hell out of some people that nothing they seem to do can stop the changes. And so progress goes on. Was it was the development of the human brain?

No, the REAL question is "How do we differentiate 'progress' from 'pointless and potentially destructive change for its own sake'?"

It must frighten the hell out of some people that they can't force others to pretend entropy is progress.

 

[regent]

The real question is how do we stop progress? If we look at history It seems that some humans are constantly trying to improve their existence by making changes. It must frighten the hell out of some people that nothing they seem to do can stop the changes. And so progress goes on. Was it was the development of the human brain?

No, the REAL question is "How do we differentiate 'progress' from 'pointless and potentially destructive change for its own sake'?"

It must frighten the hell out of some people that they can't force others to pretend entropy is progress.

As in science we think over the proposals for improvement and decide if they have merit. If they have merit or think they do, we modify them even more, if needed, and finally we might put the proposals into play. That is exactly what happened with our Constitution, It is also used in the scientific method, many business practices and our daily lives.

 

[P@triot]

No, the REAL question is "How do we differentiate 'progress' from 'pointless and potentially destructive change for its own sake'?"

 

[P@triot]

No, the REAL question is "How do we differentiate 'progress' from 'pointless and potentially destructive change for its own sake'?"

The left wants to “progress” past the U.S. Constitution. Not only is that pointless and extremely destructive (like you said), but, if you ask them, they can never tell you what they want to progress to.

What idiot gets in a car and charts a course with absolutely no destination? Answer: progressives. They have no end game. They have no idea what they really want to achieve. They just know they want to tear down what conservatives built.

 

[P@triot]

As in science we think over the proposals for improvement and decide if they have merit.

Really? Did you people do that when you decided that the government should have the power to force citizens to lie? Because that’s exactly what you jackholes did when you decided that a man can call himself a woman and he can leverage the government to force everyone else to indulge him in his outrageous lie.

Sorry sweetie...but that is anti-science. That is the left’s typical blatant disregard for science, facts, reality, etc.

 

[P@triot]

As in science we think over the proposals for improvement and decide if they have merit.

In all seriousness, the next time a progressive actually thinks it will be the first time that has ever happened. The left doesn’t exactly embody independent thought. They are all about control, group-think, and obedience.

 

[P@triot]

The real question is how do we stop progress?

No dear. The real question is: how do we restore liberty and allow people to “progress” or not progress as they see fit? Even in your phrasing of questions you have that disturbing socialist, one-size-fits-all, Nazi goose-step mentality.

If you want to “progress”, progress away. Why do you feel the need to force everyone else to progress your way with you?

 

[P@triot]

No, the REAL question is "How do we differentiate 'progress' from 'pointless and potentially destructive change for its own sake'?"

As in science we think over the proposals for improvement and decide if they have merit.

So tell us Regent...does it have “merit” to denounce, reject, and vilify the greatest men and the greatest nation ever produced? Is this “progress”? This is proof that the left doesn’t “think” over anything. They mindlessly follow the collective.

‘Party Like It’s 1776’ Theme Too Offensive for New Jersey School Prom

 

[regent]

No, the REAL question is "How do we differentiate 'progress' from 'pointless and potentially destructive change for its own sake'?"

In America the people have a say in what is constructive or destructive.
Just as the framers did with the monarchy and the Articles of Confederation, The framers dropped them and rewrote the plan for governing the new nation. If America allows people to have a say in government then the people help decide what is constructive or destructive government. When the conservatives wrote the Sedition Act, and the people didn't want that Act they dropped the Sedition Act along with America's first conservative party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The real question is how do we stop progress? If we look at history It seems that some humans are constantly trying to improve their existence by making changes. It must frighten the hell out of some people that nothing they seem to do can stop the changes. And so progress goes on. Was it was the development of the human brain?

No, the REAL question is "How do we differentiate 'progress' from 'pointless and potentially destructive change for its own sake'?"

It must frighten the hell out of some people that they can't force others to pretend entropy is progress.

As in science we think over the proposals for improvement and decide if they have merit. If they have merit or think they do, we modify them even more, if needed, and finally we might put the proposals into play. That is exactly what happened with our Constitution, It is also used in the scientific method, many business practices and our daily lives.

What the left does bears no resemblance to "science" or "thinking". Of course, it also bears no resemblance to "improvement", either.

 

[regent]

The real question is how do we stop progress?

No dear. The real question is: how do we restore liberty and allow people to “progress” or not progress as they see fit? Even in your phrasing of questions you have that disturbing socialist, one-size-fits-all, Nazi goose-step mentality.

If you want to “progress”, progress away. Why do you feel the need to force everyone else to progress your way with you?

I wouldn't force anyone to progress. The real question is how does one keep people from wanting to progress, and more importantly can we keep people from progressing if they are alive? Might try to not progress, and see if you can do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The real question is how do we stop progress?

No dear. The real question is: how do we restore liberty and allow people to “progress” or not progress as they see fit? Even in your phrasing of questions you have that disturbing socialist, one-size-fits-all, Nazi goose-step mentality.

If you want to “progress”, progress away. Why do you feel the need to force everyone else to progress your way with you?

I wouldn't force anyone to progress. The real question is how does one keep people from wanting to progress, and more importantly can we keep people from progressing if they are alive? Might try to not progress, and see if you can do it.

Your problem remains: you keep blindly insisting that what YOU want is "progress", and everyone has to accept that definition.

 

[regent]

The real question is how do we stop progress?

No dear. The real question is: how do we restore liberty and allow people to “progress” or not progress as they see fit? Even in your phrasing of questions you have that disturbing socialist, one-size-fits-all, Nazi goose-step mentality.

If you want to “progress”, progress away. Why do you feel the need to force everyone else to progress your way with you?

I wouldn't force anyone to progress. The real question is how does one keep people from wanting to progress, and more importantly can we keep people from progressing if they are alive? Might try to not progress, and see if you can do it.

Your problem remains: you keep blindly insisting that what YOU want is "progress", and everyone has to accept that definition.

I don't think that's a definition.
What I want is immaterial, progress seems to be part of the human condition. Look about you and all you can see is human progress. Were stone tools part of human progress, how about clothes? In any case, so far mankind has not been able to stop human progress. We may have even made progress in some of our governments. We progress at your own rate, and how we see the need to progress.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The real question is how do we stop progress?

No dear. The real question is: how do we restore liberty and allow people to “progress” or not progress as they see fit? Even in your phrasing of questions you have that disturbing socialist, one-size-fits-all, Nazi goose-step mentality.

If you want to “progress”, progress away. Why do you feel the need to force everyone else to progress your way with you?

I wouldn't force anyone to progress. The real question is how does one keep people from wanting to progress, and more importantly can we keep people from progressing if they are alive? Might try to not progress, and see if you can do it.

Your problem remains: you keep blindly insisting that what YOU want is "progress", and everyone has to accept that definition.

I don't think that's a definition.
What I want is immaterial, progress seems to be part of the human condition. Look about you and all you can see is human progress. Were stone tools part of human progress, how about clothes? In any case, so far mankind has not been able to stop human progress. We may have even made progress in some of our governments. We progress at your own rate, and how we see the need to progress.

No, honey, CHANGE is part of the human condition. Change is not automatically progress; it's just change. You should wrap your mind around that.

 

[regent]

The real question is how do we stop progress?

No dear. The real question is: how do we restore liberty and allow people to “progress” or not progress as they see fit? Even in your phrasing of questions you have that disturbing socialist, one-size-fits-all, Nazi goose-step mentality.

If you want to “progress”, progress away. Why do you feel the need to force everyone else to progress your way with you?

I wouldn't force anyone to progress. The real question is how does one keep people from wanting to progress, and more importantly can we keep people from progressing if they are alive? Might try to not progress, and see if you can do it.

Your problem remains: you keep blindly insisting that what YOU want is "progress", and everyone has to accept that definition.

I don't think that's a definition.
What I want is immaterial, progress seems to be part of the human condition. Look about you and all you can see is human progress. Were stone tools part of human progress, how about clothes? In any case, so far mankind has not been able to stop human progress. We may have even made progress in some of our governments. We progress at your own rate, and how we see the need to progress.

No, honey, CHANGE is part of the human condition. Change is not automatically progress; it's just change. You should wrap your mind around that.

So there's no purpose to change, not even being tired of the status quo?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No dear. The real question is: how do we restore liberty and allow people to “progress” or not progress as they see fit? Even in your phrasing of questions you have that disturbing socialist, one-size-fits-all, Nazi goose-step mentality.

If you want to “progress”, progress away. Why do you feel the need to force everyone else to progress your way with you?

I wouldn't force anyone to progress. The real question is how does one keep people from wanting to progress, and more importantly can we keep people from progressing if they are alive? Might try to not progress, and see if you can do it.

Your problem remains: you keep blindly insisting that what YOU want is "progress", and everyone has to accept that definition.

I don't think that's a definition.
What I want is immaterial, progress seems to be part of the human condition. Look about you and all you can see is human progress. Were stone tools part of human progress, how about clothes? In any case, so far mankind has not been able to stop human progress. We may have even made progress in some of our governments. We progress at your own rate, and how we see the need to progress.

No, honey, CHANGE is part of the human condition. Change is not automatically progress; it's just change. You should wrap your mind around that.

So there's no purpose to change, not even being tired of the status quo?

Inherently? No. The purpose is conveyed by the person making the change, and whether or not it is "progress" depends on whether or not its outcome is positive.

 

[P@triot]

The framers dropped them and rewrote the plan for governing the new nation.

And have you properly and legally “rewritten” the U.S. Constitution through an amendment? No? Then you are just mindlessly driveling while acknowledging that everything the left engages in is unconstitutional.

 

[P@triot]

The real question is how does one keep people from wanting to progress?

Here again we see your Nazi goose-step mentality. Why do you want to “keep people” from doing anything (short of encroaching on the rights of others, of course)?

 

[P@triot]

So there's no purpose to change, not even being tired of the status quo?

Think about how scary, dangerous, and ignorant that statement is. Why would you “change” just for the sake of change? If one finds liberty “mundane” after 245 years - should we just implement oppressive communism? You know, just because we’re tired of the “status quo”?

That one sentence right there proves that the left doesn’t think. They don’t weigh anything or consider the outcomes. They just do. Like a mindless farm animal.