The Four Pillars of Progressivism

[ptbw forever]

JFK would be a republican today, so would Truman.

JFK would be repulsed by what passes as Republicans today. So would Truman
Lets see what Truman had to say about Republicans....

the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of Karl Marx. Kennedy and Truman would barf at what their party has become. Would any dem today have the balls to bomb Hiroshima or put up the blockade of Cuba? NO, not one.

You keep saying that, but none of the facts support your view

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

compared to today's democrats, Kennedy was a conservative.
We are comparing him to todays parties, not the parties of the 1960s.

Harry Truman was as far right as anyone could be in his time.

Really?

Then what do you call the conservatives from the 50s and 60s?
You can't be both you know?

The far far right.

LOL

You don't seem to understand that this country(as a whole)used to be far more right wing than any Republican living today.

Your entire premise that the Founders were left wing is laughably retarded. Even the most left wing of the Founders had no problem with "far right" positions like executing traitors, white nationalism(global segregation), and even state religions.

Every quote you use to try to paint Jefferson or Washington etc as a "progressive" was literally just them saying they wished someone would do SOMETHING about those issues when the general public didn't even care about them.

 

[Dragonlady]

From near as I can tell, there are 4 pillars of Progressivism which is their foundation. All four of these pillars is an assault on the Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution is a document that attempted to create a government that is limited. In other words, those in government are viewed as not having any superior intellectual capacity or righteous character than the average citizen. Such outrageous thinking must be destroyed so that every aspect in our lives is overseen and regulated by government who are the master race. Why without Big Brother monitoring our every move, we would all be dying in the streets as we render the planet inhabitable environmentally.

1. Illegal Immigration. Illegal immigration is the first pillar. It carries with it the notion that borders are not needed. We hear many Progs today say as much. So if there are no borders, then there are no sovereign nations. If there are no sovereign nations, then the Republic becomes obsolete, along with its documents such as the Constitution. Then an all powerful world government can be set up with a more "enlightened" Constitution that will be offered.

2. Massive debt. Massive debt will eventually destroy the Republic. It is not a matter of if, but when. No nation can continue trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. How they got this far is nothing short of a miracle. And as the Republic folds, again, so do it's documents.

3. Assault on Christianity. Many think that morality and government are separate, but in reality, all laws represent a moral code. Moreover, only a moral society can be trusted with freedom. As Ben Franklin once said, "In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think that a General government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as toned despotic government, being incapable of any other." If society loses its moral soul and becomes a nation of convicts, then a warden is required to maintain order. Ripping morality out of schools and the rest of society is key to their cause. It's like I've always said, prison is a Prog utopia. Everyone has equal housing, dress, food, education, and health care and all of it is free. Not only that, these are "gun free zones" and every day is a gay pride day.

4. Centralized all powerful government. The last pillar upon which Progressivism rests is an all powerful centralized government. The only time this is not embraced is when it infringes upon one of the other pillars. For you see Progs today run around chanting state rights when it comes to illegal drug legalization or moving illegals around from sanctuary city to sanctuary city. For example, refeer use is a federal crime, as is illegal immigration. Progs are simply openly defying these rules of law as states like Colorado legalize the use of reefer or cities openly declare themselves a refuge for illegals. However, when it comes to any other issue, state rights go bye, bye. Instead, with Obama in office writing EO's that violate federal law on such things as immigration, then all of a sudden the federal government becomes the ultimate authority again. Then when states like Arizona try and stand up to enforce immigration laws on the books, they get sued by Obama and company and forced to comply with the law,. We have now become a nation of men, not laws, which further degrades the Constitution as a meaningless document to be reinterpreted awayor simply ignored by Progs to the point where no one even refers to it anymore.

More idiot conservatives pretending to understand what liberals want:

1. Equal rights for all - men, women, white, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims Christians, gays, straights, not just white Christian males - all legal citizens. You know that part of the Pledge of Allegiance "with liberty and justice for all", not just straight white males.

2. A quality public education system - you want "choice" in education, then go to a private school. This patchwork of public schools, charter schools and home schooling is not working. In fact, American education was ranked higher when there was no such "choice". Charter school vouchers simply skim the best students and funding from public schools and don't deliver a better education, they just take the best students.

3. Equal opportunity - for everyone. Same as equality, in jobs, schools, and other opportunities. Conservatives hate affirmative action for non-whites, but what are "legacy" admissions but affirmative action for rich whites who make up the bulk of the graduates of Ivy League schools. These kids are NOT getting in on their merits either.

When it comes to hiring, it would be interesting to see a truly "blind test". Recruiters would be given resumees which contain no personal information about the applicant - name, sex, address, only their skills and work history. Interviews would be similary blind - done via electronic communications - questions and answers. The HR people pick their hires, and see who wins.

Now I know that there is more to the hiring process than skills and work history, there's also whether or not the person will be a good "fit" with the existing staff. I believe such a test will reveal how deep these biases and prejudices are. That really well qualified women and/or minorities are routinely being passed over in favour of less qualifed white males and will be really eye-opening for the public at large.

4. Reduced military spending. Every conservative should be forced to read a detailed history of the rise and fall of Rome. There are dangerous parallels going on here. Both the corrupting influence of lobbying, and the corruptability of a government dependant on senators raising massive amounts of funds.

The costs of Rome's standing armies was a huge fianancial drain on the economy of the city. Initially only Romans, were allowed to serve but as Rome conquered most of the known world at the time, there weren't enough Romans to fill the need. So non-citizens were recruited. Each soldier was promised an acre of land in Rome on retirement. Non-citizens were promised citizenship. But eventually there was no land left in Rome to give them, so soldiers were encouraged to retire where they were last stationed, because it would be easier to give them that one acre in the conquered lands.

Armies were lead by consuls who paid their own troops. Conquering new lands was one way of doing it. The captured wealth could then be used to pay the troops (after the requisite tribute was sent to Rome).

Last but not least, Senators were expected to provide "games" for the people of Rome - gladiators, lions, chariot races, and other entertainments. This would ensure their re-election, but such games were expensive, so they had "sponsors". Knights (people of the business class), who sought passage of favourable legislation, who would bankroll the Senators to get their laws passed.

When the democracy of the elections was abolished and the leaders of the city became "Emperors", the city's decline was inevitable. Previously, the elites considered it a sacred duty to serve as the "First Man of Rome", but eventually it became a naked power grab, which those in power used to line their own pockets.

If any of this sounds familiar, you would be correct.

1. You say you want equality? Well tell that to polygamists who are not able to marry. Why are the unable to marry? Because the secular state thinks that polygamy is icky. No, the reason polygamists are unable to marry is that they are conservative and they don't have the lobby group that gays had. For you see, gays on average don't have the financial burden to raise children, so as a result, most are upwardly mobile and can throw their money at legislators to get their way. Gays could care less about conservative religious polygamists, who are the worst of the worst.

2. You say just go to a private school if you want a decent education? Well let's attempt to use our brain for a little bit, shall we? Which public schools are the worst public schools? Are they not the poor inner city public schools? I know because I've visited them. They are akin to an inner city prison for children. It is there that they are introduced to gangs and drugs and most of the girls wind up pregnant. All the doors are chain linked, except the entrance, where there is a guard and a metal detector to stop student from carrying in guns and knives. Unfortunately for poor folk, they are unable financially to move to a rich school district nor can they afford a private school. Moreover, most of the poor parents are not even educated enough to know what exactly they are doing to their children by sending them to inner city public school prisons. I do know one couple that lived in a poor inner city district, so they moved from their house and rented a small cramped apartment in a better school district. They were miserable where they lived but at least their children had a shot at getting a decent education instead of being educated in living a life of crime. Of course, most of these children in the inner city are minorities. I reckon this is the underhanded liberal way to ensure continued segregation of minorities so that their white kids won't have to mingle with them in the nicer school districts.

3. How about instead of focusing on requiring colleges to accept minority students through affirmative action who have not been prepared to compete academically with white kids who have had a silver spoon in their mouths their whole lives, perhaps we could give them a decent public education and let the chips fall where they may. I recently heard of a poor Asian kid who had a perfect score on the SAT and a 4.0 average, but could not get into Yale because they had a quota for accepting blacks. this is the insanity that is caused by liberal programs.

4. The US has an ample military to defend itself and to destroy the entire globe about 4 times over. However, it is Progressives in both parties who insist on "leading" the world. In other words, they insist on being the military policeman. If Hillary had been elected, she would have instituted a no fly zone in Syria, which as we learned with Obama in Libya, is code for war and overthrowing a dictator so ISIS can move in and take over. Do you want to know the problem with liberals such as yourself? You support big government at home but not abroad, and the problem with Republicans is that they support big government abroad but not at home. Well guess what dingleberries, once you create big government, once you create that Frankenstein, then it does as it pleases and will continue to be involved in both. Wilson and FDR created a war conquering military machine that has gone nonstop since its creation. Now they don't even bother declaring war. Of course, you have no problem with WW1, WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam war, and the Libyan war being started by Dims, eh?

Woops! Looks like you stepped in a pile of poo. Sorry bout that.

You've actually proven many of my points, and continued with your right wing lies.

Inner city schools are the WORST because they have the LEAST FUNDING. The US is the only first world country other than Turkey which funds public schools based on local property taxes. Inner city schools have the lowest tax base and hence the lowest level of funding. Many are lacking computer labs, or even sufficient books for students. Many white areas in the south are incorporating as separate communities within the communities to ensure that their tax dollars are never spent on poor kids.

I know public school teachers in rural white areas who are buying supplies for their classrooms because they have no funds to do so. And their students are sharing textbooks too. This is no way to teach students.

And no - progressives don't want to rule the world. They want the US to STOP getting involved in other people's messes. The ONLY reason Obama went into Libya was because the US asked NATO to intervene. He did so on a very limited basis, and got out when it ended. Given the ultimate outcome, he now regrets having done so and has publically admitted that.

As for Clinton, I have seen no evidence that she would be attacking the world willy nilly. She couldn't possibly be doing a worse job than Trump is doing militarily. You're banned from attacking terrorist sites in Yemen, and Trump killed more Syria civilians in the month of March than Assad, the Russians or ISIS. And you wonder why Muslims hate Americans.

Trump bombed both Assad's air force base (with NO intention of doing damage), but warned the Russians ahead of time so Assad moved his planes and his people. He bombed Afghanistan, and then threatened NK. All of which was done with absolutely no attempt at diplomacy.

The last Democrat President to start or escalate a war was Johnson in Viet Nam (started under Eisenhauer), but unlike Democrats, every Republican since Nixon has started a war or conflict. Nixon - Cambodia, Reagan - Granada, Bush I - Gulf War, Bush II - Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that Democrats are aggressively militaristic is to be wilfully blind. Trump ran on a policy of building up the military. History tells us that every Republican military build-up leads to another Republican war. Gotta play with all the new toys after all.

 

[Pogo]

The last Democrat President to start or escalate a war was Johnson in Viet Nam (started under Eisenhauer), but unlike Democrats, every Republican since Nixon has started a war or conflict. Nixon - Cambodia, Reagan - Granada, Bush I - Gulf War, Bush II - Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that Democrats are aggressively militaristic is to be wilfully blind. Trump ran on a policy of building up the military. History tells us that every Republican military build-up leads to another Republican war. Gotta play with all the new toys after all.

Also Bush I: Panama, a blatantly illegal action. And Reagan funded contras and propped up Bin Laden.

Jimmy Carter notes that his administration never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. That's not true of any other POTUS since Herbert Hoover. That's part of why the war nuts try to portray him as a "failure" --- he didn't give 'em a war to play with.

 

[Dragonlady]

What if taxpayers were allowed to put on their 1040s what percentage of their taxes should go to each government- spending sector? Those who wanted to destroy Islam could assign 100% of their taxes to the Defense Department; a feralphile could pay for welfare moochers with his own money, not ours.

On a side note - After 8 years of progressivism in the WH, 8 years of progressive leadership in the Senate, and 4 years of Pelosi leadership in the House - income inequality/disparity, one of Holy Grails of the movement - decreased considerably! j/k no, it didn't.

Kennedys = Bushes

That was by design. The born-rich leaders on both fake sides want to destroy the middle class, the Right from Wall Street down and the Left from the ghetto up. The Right secretly believes, "I've got mine, and I'm not going to let you get yours," while the Left preaches, "I've got mine, and I'm going to give yours away."

Our received political ideas remind me of a cartoon about a medieval battle where the two sides' flags were exactly the same. But if you looked at the stick-figure emblem from right to left, it was a duck; from left to right, it was a rabbit.

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Instead, you cover your own feelings of insecurity and ignorance by pretending you know ALL, and completely ignoring the utter disaster that has been Republican economic policies, and Republican foreign policy - stock market crashes and endless wars is no way to run a prosperous country.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

 

[danielpalos]

What if taxpayers were allowed to put on their 1040s what percentage of their taxes should go to each government- spending sector? Those who wanted to destroy Islam could assign 100% of their taxes to the Defense Department; a feralphile could pay for welfare moochers with his own money, not ours.

On a side note - After 8 years of progressivism in the WH, 8 years of progressive leadership in the Senate, and 4 years of Pelosi leadership in the House - income inequality/disparity, one of Holy Grails of the movement - decreased considerably! j/k no, it didn't.

Kennedys = Bushes

That was by design. The born-rich leaders on both fake sides want to destroy the middle class, the Right from Wall Street down and the Left from the ghetto up. The Right secretly believes, "I've got mine, and I'm not going to let you get yours," while the Left preaches, "I've got mine, and I'm going to give yours away."

Our received political ideas remind me of a cartoon about a medieval battle where the two sides' flags were exactly the same. But if you looked at the stick-figure emblem from right to left, it was a duck; from left to right, it was a rabbit.

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Instead, you cover your own feelings of insecurity and ignorance by pretending you know ALL, and completely ignoring the utter disaster that has been Republican economic policies, and Republican foreign policy - stock market crashes and endless wars is no way to run a prosperous country.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

begging the question is the only way, the right wing can be right, twice a day.

 

[Votto]

From near as I can tell, there are 4 pillars of Progressivism which is their foundation. All four of these pillars is an assault on the Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution is a document that attempted to create a government that is limited. In other words, those in government are viewed as not having any superior intellectual capacity or righteous character than the average citizen. Such outrageous thinking must be destroyed so that every aspect in our lives is overseen and regulated by government who are the master race. Why without Big Brother monitoring our every move, we would all be dying in the streets as we render the planet inhabitable environmentally.

1. Illegal Immigration. Illegal immigration is the first pillar. It carries with it the notion that borders are not needed. We hear many Progs today say as much. So if there are no borders, then there are no sovereign nations. If there are no sovereign nations, then the Republic becomes obsolete, along with its documents such as the Constitution. Then an all powerful world government can be set up with a more "enlightened" Constitution that will be offered.

2. Massive debt. Massive debt will eventually destroy the Republic. It is not a matter of if, but when. No nation can continue trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. How they got this far is nothing short of a miracle. And as the Republic folds, again, so do it's documents.

3. Assault on Christianity. Many think that morality and government are separate, but in reality, all laws represent a moral code. Moreover, only a moral society can be trusted with freedom. As Ben Franklin once said, "In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think that a General government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as toned despotic government, being incapable of any other." If society loses its moral soul and becomes a nation of convicts, then a warden is required to maintain order. Ripping morality out of schools and the rest of society is key to their cause. It's like I've always said, prison is a Prog utopia. Everyone has equal housing, dress, food, education, and health care and all of it is free. Not only that, these are "gun free zones" and every day is a gay pride day.

4. Centralized all powerful government. The last pillar upon which Progressivism rests is an all powerful centralized government. The only time this is not embraced is when it infringes upon one of the other pillars. For you see Progs today run around chanting state rights when it comes to illegal drug legalization or moving illegals around from sanctuary city to sanctuary city. For example, refeer use is a federal crime, as is illegal immigration. Progs are simply openly defying these rules of law as states like Colorado legalize the use of reefer or cities openly declare themselves a refuge for illegals. However, when it comes to any other issue, state rights go bye, bye. Instead, with Obama in office writing EO's that violate federal law on such things as immigration, then all of a sudden the federal government becomes the ultimate authority again. Then when states like Arizona try and stand up to enforce immigration laws on the books, they get sued by Obama and company and forced to comply with the law,. We have now become a nation of men, not laws, which further degrades the Constitution as a meaningless document to be reinterpreted awayor simply ignored by Progs to the point where no one even refers to it anymore.

More idiot conservatives pretending to understand what liberals want:

1. Equal rights for all - men, women, white, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims Christians, gays, straights, not just white Christian males - all legal citizens. You know that part of the Pledge of Allegiance "with liberty and justice for all", not just straight white males.

2. A quality public education system - you want "choice" in education, then go to a private school. This patchwork of public schools, charter schools and home schooling is not working. In fact, American education was ranked higher when there was no such "choice". Charter school vouchers simply skim the best students and funding from public schools and don't deliver a better education, they just take the best students.

3. Equal opportunity - for everyone. Same as equality, in jobs, schools, and other opportunities. Conservatives hate affirmative action for non-whites, but what are "legacy" admissions but affirmative action for rich whites who make up the bulk of the graduates of Ivy League schools. These kids are NOT getting in on their merits either.

When it comes to hiring, it would be interesting to see a truly "blind test". Recruiters would be given resumees which contain no personal information about the applicant - name, sex, address, only their skills and work history. Interviews would be similary blind - done via electronic communications - questions and answers. The HR people pick their hires, and see who wins.

Now I know that there is more to the hiring process than skills and work history, there's also whether or not the person will be a good "fit" with the existing staff. I believe such a test will reveal how deep these biases and prejudices are. That really well qualified women and/or minorities are routinely being passed over in favour of less qualifed white males and will be really eye-opening for the public at large.

4. Reduced military spending. Every conservative should be forced to read a detailed history of the rise and fall of Rome. There are dangerous parallels going on here. Both the corrupting influence of lobbying, and the corruptability of a government dependant on senators raising massive amounts of funds.

The costs of Rome's standing armies was a huge fianancial drain on the economy of the city. Initially only Romans, were allowed to serve but as Rome conquered most of the known world at the time, there weren't enough Romans to fill the need. So non-citizens were recruited. Each soldier was promised an acre of land in Rome on retirement. Non-citizens were promised citizenship. But eventually there was no land left in Rome to give them, so soldiers were encouraged to retire where they were last stationed, because it would be easier to give them that one acre in the conquered lands.

Armies were lead by consuls who paid their own troops. Conquering new lands was one way of doing it. The captured wealth could then be used to pay the troops (after the requisite tribute was sent to Rome).

Last but not least, Senators were expected to provide "games" for the people of Rome - gladiators, lions, chariot races, and other entertainments. This would ensure their re-election, but such games were expensive, so they had "sponsors". Knights (people of the business class), who sought passage of favourable legislation, who would bankroll the Senators to get their laws passed.

When the democracy of the elections was abolished and the leaders of the city became "Emperors", the city's decline was inevitable. Previously, the elites considered it a sacred duty to serve as the "First Man of Rome", but eventually it became a naked power grab, which those in power used to line their own pockets.

If any of this sounds familiar, you would be correct.

1. You say you want equality? Well tell that to polygamists who are not able to marry. Why are the unable to marry? Because the secular state thinks that polygamy is icky. No, the reason polygamists are unable to marry is that they are conservative and they don't have the lobby group that gays had. For you see, gays on average don't have the financial burden to raise children, so as a result, most are upwardly mobile and can throw their money at legislators to get their way. Gays could care less about conservative religious polygamists, who are the worst of the worst.

2. You say just go to a private school if you want a decent education? Well let's attempt to use our brain for a little bit, shall we? Which public schools are the worst public schools? Are they not the poor inner city public schools? I know because I've visited them. They are akin to an inner city prison for children. It is there that they are introduced to gangs and drugs and most of the girls wind up pregnant. All the doors are chain linked, except the entrance, where there is a guard and a metal detector to stop student from carrying in guns and knives. Unfortunately for poor folk, they are unable financially to move to a rich school district nor can they afford a private school. Moreover, most of the poor parents are not even educated enough to know what exactly they are doing to their children by sending them to inner city public school prisons. I do know one couple that lived in a poor inner city district, so they moved from their house and rented a small cramped apartment in a better school district. They were miserable where they lived but at least their children had a shot at getting a decent education instead of being educated in living a life of crime. Of course, most of these children in the inner city are minorities. I reckon this is the underhanded liberal way to ensure continued segregation of minorities so that their white kids won't have to mingle with them in the nicer school districts.

3. How about instead of focusing on requiring colleges to accept minority students through affirmative action who have not been prepared to compete academically with white kids who have had a silver spoon in their mouths their whole lives, perhaps we could give them a decent public education and let the chips fall where they may. I recently heard of a poor Asian kid who had a perfect score on the SAT and a 4.0 average, but could not get into Yale because they had a quota for accepting blacks. this is the insanity that is caused by liberal programs.

4. The US has an ample military to defend itself and to destroy the entire globe about 4 times over. However, it is Progressives in both parties who insist on "leading" the world. In other words, they insist on being the military policeman. If Hillary had been elected, she would have instituted a no fly zone in Syria, which as we learned with Obama in Libya, is code for war and overthrowing a dictator so ISIS can move in and take over. Do you want to know the problem with liberals such as yourself? You support big government at home but not abroad, and the problem with Republicans is that they support big government abroad but not at home. Well guess what dingleberries, once you create big government, once you create that Frankenstein, then it does as it pleases and will continue to be involved in both. Wilson and FDR created a war conquering military machine that has gone nonstop since its creation. Now they don't even bother declaring war. Of course, you have no problem with WW1, WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam war, and the Libyan war being started by Dims, eh?

Woops! Looks like you stepped in a pile of poo. Sorry bout that.

You've actually proven many of my points, and continued with your right wing lies.

Inner city schools are the WORST because they have the LEAST FUNDING. The US is the only first world country other than Turkey which funds public schools based on local property taxes. Inner city schools have the lowest tax base and hence the lowest level of funding. Many are lacking computer labs, or even sufficient books for students. Many white areas in the south are incorporating as separate communities within the communities to ensure that their tax dollars are never spent on poor kids.

I know public school teachers in rural white areas who are buying supplies for their classrooms because they have no funds to do so. And their students are sharing textbooks too. This is no way to teach students.

And no - progressives don't want to rule the world. They want the US to STOP getting involved in other people's messes. The ONLY reason Obama went into Libya was because the US asked NATO to intervene. He did so on a very limited basis, and got out when it ended. Given the ultimate outcome, he now regrets having done so and has publically admitted that.

As for Clinton, I have seen no evidence that she would be attacking the world willy nilly. She couldn't possibly be doing a worse job than Trump is doing militarily. You're banned from attacking terrorist sites in Yemen, and Trump killed more Syria civilians in the month of March than Assad, the Russians or ISIS. And you wonder why Muslims hate Americans.

Trump bombed both Assad's air force base (with NO intention of doing damage), but warned the Russians ahead of time so Assad moved his planes and his people. He bombed Afghanistan, and then threatened NK. All of which was done with absolutely no attempt at diplomacy.

The last Democrat President to start or escalate a war was Johnson in Viet Nam (started under Eisenhauer), but unlike Democrats, every Republican since Nixon has started a war or conflict. Nixon - Cambodia, Reagan - Granada, Bush I - Gulf War, Bush II - Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that Democrats are aggressively militaristic is to be wilfully blind. Trump ran on a policy of building up the military. History tells us that every Republican military build-up leads to another Republican war. Gotta play with all the new toys after all.

Right wing lies? I said that inner city schools are hell holes and are all in poor neighborhoods. You agree with me but add that it's because of local property taxes? How was I then lying exactly? The only tax voters get to vote on directly is whether or not to educate our children. How quaint. And here is the big shocker, the poor never vote to raise them but the rich greedy white folk do?

As for your avoidance of putting both party's at fault for the wars abroad is duly noted. I make no distinction between Progs in both party's as where you seem inclined to paint one good and the other bad. Shocking! In fact, Obama broke the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress of his war in Libya after so many days into the conflict. His defense was, it was not really a war. Talk about liars! Of course, you don't think he lied, do you tool?

So Obama feels bad about it does he? Well that's just great, and it looks like you have forgiven him but not Republicans for all the wars abroad. How insightful.

As I said, once you create an all powerful federal government, there is no controlling it no matter which party is at the helm. That is something you fail to admit, among other things.

 

[SeaGal]

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Oh good grief - for reasons sake check your assumptions at the door and look in the mirror.

The party leaders make it clear what they believe. They believe in education - as long as it's the relic of our public education system where innovation is held hostage by the power of public sector union PAC's...while their own children attend private schools. They trust in the benevolence of centralized big government as a ruling body - but not as an employer. Hence the 'need' for public sector unions and their PAC donations, of course. They believe in employee rights - unless it's in a 'right to work' state. They believe in a woman's right to choose - unless she wants school choice. They despise wealth as they gather it. They believe in the law - unless they come across one they don't like then they ignore it.

But let's go back to education for a moment. Clinging to an outdated model is a 'regressive' trait. In the US we spend more money than most other industrialized nations and our results are mediocre at best. If ever an innovative, progressive approach was needed it is in our educational system. There's no magic bullet but clinging to the old way is not an option. What's called for is a broad spectrum approach - virtual, magnet, charter, technical/vocational centers (all public schools, btw) and vouchers. You truly care about inner city kids?...vouchers provide the best ticket out...and is usually a savings to taxpayers (unfortunately not a core principle of progressives).

It isn't what is written on paper that defines progressive beliefs, it is by word and deed that the truth is revealed. And that truth is not a thing of beauty.

You are correct about one thing. I don't know what's in the Republican platform having been a member of the Democrat Part for decades - and an educator for 30 years, now retired, as well as thousands of hours spent volunteering with disadvantaged youth and adults. I've watched the Democrat Party eat its own moderates, silence reason, brook no dissent, regress. Such a shame.

If ever Juvenal's appraisal of Roman leaders manipulation of Roman citizens applies in America, it applies to todays leading Leftists.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

True - Obama has done a wonderful job of hobnobbing with and enriching the rich...while impoverishing the 'poor'.

 

[Iceweasel]

Inner city schools are the WORST because they have the LEAST FUNDING. The US is the only first world country other than Turkey which funds public schools based on local property taxes. Inner city schools have the lowest tax base and hence the lowest level of funding. Many are lacking computer labs, or even sufficient books for students. Many white areas in the south are incorporating as separate communities within the communities to ensure that their tax dollars are never spent on poor kids.

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Instead, you cover your own feelings of insecurity and ignorance by pretending you know ALL, and completely ignoring the utter disaster that has been Republican economic policies, and Republican foreign policy - stock market crashes and endless wars is no way to run a prosperous country.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

Yes, that's why they are called "poor". Who's blaming them? I know lefties pretty damn well. The hallmark of the leftist is projection. They apply their shortcomings onto others and fully expect it to go unnoticed.

You guys are too intellectually dishonest and arrogant to do any self examination. Our school system is very corrupt. We spend more per student that almost anywhere, and I think we're number one. Quite a lot of the funds gets scooped up by a heavily bureaucratic overhead run my union thugs.

We know that Democrat policies puts a city, state and federal government deeply in debt. We know growing government does not lead to prosperity. We know their foreign policies suck, Iran is now on the verge of having nuclear weapons. ISIS flourished while Obama made the political decision to leave a precarious situation. Libyan militants armed. And on and on.

All you have is pure hatred for everything not leftist. You know nothing about our political system. You have your own country you can fuck up, coming here blathering absolute polemic nonsense is counter productive by representing the left so accurately.

 

[Votto]

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Oh good grief - for reasons sake check your assumptions at the door and look in the mirror.

The party leaders make it clear what they believe. They believe in education - as long as it's the relic of our public education system where innovation is held hostage by the power of public sector union PAC's...while their own children attend private schools. They trust in the benevolence of centralized big government as a ruling body - but not as an employer. Hence the 'need' for public sector unions and their PAC donations, of course. They believe in employee rights - unless it's in a 'right to work' state. They believe in a woman's right to choose - unless she wants school choice. They despise wealth as they gather it. They believe in the law - unless they come across one they don't like then they ignore it.

But let's go back to education for a moment. Clinging to an outdated model is a 'regressive' trait. In the US we spend more money than most other industrialized nations and our results are mediocre at best. If ever an innovative, progressive approach was needed it is in our educational system. There's no magic bullet but clinging to the old way is not an option. What's called for is a broad spectrum approach - virtual, magnet, charter, technical/vocational centers (all public schools, btw) and vouchers. You truly care about inner city kids?...vouchers provide the best ticket out...and is usually a savings to taxpayers (unfortunately not a core principle of progressives).

It isn't what is written on paper that defines progressive beliefs, it is by word and deed that the truth is revealed. And that truth is not a thing of beauty.

You are correct about one thing. I don't know what's in the Republican platform having been a member of the Democrat Part for decades - and an educator for 30 years, now retired, as well as thousands of hours spent volunteering with disadvantaged youth and adults. I've watched the Democrat Party eat its own moderates, silence reason, brook no dissent, regress. Such a shame.

If ever Juvenal's appraisal of Roman leaders manipulation of Roman citizens applies in America, it applies to todays leading Leftists.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

True - Obama has done a wonderful job of hobnobbing with and enriching the rich...while impoverishing the 'poor'.

Yes, of course. Progressives believe in baseball and apple pie, and everything American.

Meanwhile the same politicians that preach to us that child voucher systems are not a good thing send their children to private schools.

My guess they are private schools most of us cannot afford, just like the same hypocrites telling us how great Obamacare is then opting out of it for themselves.

Wake up tool.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans called JFK a communist and now you claim to love him

JFK was well known as anti-communist...he put MLK under FBI investigation for ties to communism...and you claim he's your hero. He also pushed defense spending to a higher percentage of federal expenditures than current military spending...and you claim to love him.

Kennedy would look today's progressive movement in the face and say - I do not know you.

Here is what Conservatives thought of JFK

If those Conservatives could have the choice between JFK and Bill or Obama, which do you think they would choose?

 

[danielpalos]

From near as I can tell, there are 4 pillars of Progressivism which is their foundation. All four of these pillars is an assault on the Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution is a document that attempted to create a government that is limited. In other words, those in government are viewed as not having any superior intellectual capacity or righteous character than the average citizen. Such outrageous thinking must be destroyed so that every aspect in our lives is overseen and regulated by government who are the master race. Why without Big Brother monitoring our every move, we would all be dying in the streets as we render the planet inhabitable environmentally.

1. Illegal Immigration. Illegal immigration is the first pillar. It carries with it the notion that borders are not needed. We hear many Progs today say as much. So if there are no borders, then there are no sovereign nations. If there are no sovereign nations, then the Republic becomes obsolete, along with its documents such as the Constitution. Then an all powerful world government can be set up with a more "enlightened" Constitution that will be offered.

2. Massive debt. Massive debt will eventually destroy the Republic. It is not a matter of if, but when. No nation can continue trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. How they got this far is nothing short of a miracle. And as the Republic folds, again, so do it's documents.

3. Assault on Christianity. Many think that morality and government are separate, but in reality, all laws represent a moral code. Moreover, only a moral society can be trusted with freedom. As Ben Franklin once said, "In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think that a General government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as toned despotic government, being incapable of any other." If society loses its moral soul and becomes a nation of convicts, then a warden is required to maintain order. Ripping morality out of schools and the rest of society is key to their cause. It's like I've always said, prison is a Prog utopia. Everyone has equal housing, dress, food, education, and health care and all of it is free. Not only that, these are "gun free zones" and every day is a gay pride day.

4. Centralized all powerful government. The last pillar upon which Progressivism rests is an all powerful centralized government. The only time this is not embraced is when it infringes upon one of the other pillars. For you see Progs today run around chanting state rights when it comes to illegal drug legalization or moving illegals around from sanctuary city to sanctuary city. For example, refeer use is a federal crime, as is illegal immigration. Progs are simply openly defying these rules of law as states like Colorado legalize the use of reefer or cities openly declare themselves a refuge for illegals. However, when it comes to any other issue, state rights go bye, bye. Instead, with Obama in office writing EO's that violate federal law on such things as immigration, then all of a sudden the federal government becomes the ultimate authority again. Then when states like Arizona try and stand up to enforce immigration laws on the books, they get sued by Obama and company and forced to comply with the law,. We have now become a nation of men, not laws, which further degrades the Constitution as a meaningless document to be reinterpreted awayor simply ignored by Progs to the point where no one even refers to it anymore.

More idiot conservatives pretending to understand what liberals want:

1. Equal rights for all - men, women, white, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims Christians, gays, straights, not just white Christian males - all legal citizens. You know that part of the Pledge of Allegiance "with liberty and justice for all", not just straight white males.

2. A quality public education system - you want "choice" in education, then go to a private school. This patchwork of public schools, charter schools and home schooling is not working. In fact, American education was ranked higher when there was no such "choice". Charter school vouchers simply skim the best students and funding from public schools and don't deliver a better education, they just take the best students.

3. Equal opportunity - for everyone. Same as equality, in jobs, schools, and other opportunities. Conservatives hate affirmative action for non-whites, but what are "legacy" admissions but affirmative action for rich whites who make up the bulk of the graduates of Ivy League schools. These kids are NOT getting in on their merits either.

When it comes to hiring, it would be interesting to see a truly "blind test". Recruiters would be given resumees which contain no personal information about the applicant - name, sex, address, only their skills and work history. Interviews would be similary blind - done via electronic communications - questions and answers. The HR people pick their hires, and see who wins.

Now I know that there is more to the hiring process than skills and work history, there's also whether or not the person will be a good "fit" with the existing staff. I believe such a test will reveal how deep these biases and prejudices are. That really well qualified women and/or minorities are routinely being passed over in favour of less qualifed white males and will be really eye-opening for the public at large.

4. Reduced military spending. Every conservative should be forced to read a detailed history of the rise and fall of Rome. There are dangerous parallels going on here. Both the corrupting influence of lobbying, and the corruptability of a government dependant on senators raising massive amounts of funds.

The costs of Rome's standing armies was a huge fianancial drain on the economy of the city. Initially only Romans, were allowed to serve but as Rome conquered most of the known world at the time, there weren't enough Romans to fill the need. So non-citizens were recruited. Each soldier was promised an acre of land in Rome on retirement. Non-citizens were promised citizenship. But eventually there was no land left in Rome to give them, so soldiers were encouraged to retire where they were last stationed, because it would be easier to give them that one acre in the conquered lands.

Armies were lead by consuls who paid their own troops. Conquering new lands was one way of doing it. The captured wealth could then be used to pay the troops (after the requisite tribute was sent to Rome).

Last but not least, Senators were expected to provide "games" for the people of Rome - gladiators, lions, chariot races, and other entertainments. This would ensure their re-election, but such games were expensive, so they had "sponsors". Knights (people of the business class), who sought passage of favourable legislation, who would bankroll the Senators to get their laws passed.

When the democracy of the elections was abolished and the leaders of the city became "Emperors", the city's decline was inevitable. Previously, the elites considered it a sacred duty to serve as the "First Man of Rome", but eventually it became a naked power grab, which those in power used to line their own pockets.

If any of this sounds familiar, you would be correct.

1. You say you want equality? Well tell that to polygamists who are not able to marry. Why are the unable to marry? Because the secular state thinks that polygamy is icky. No, the reason polygamists are unable to marry is that they are conservative and they don't have the lobby group that gays had. For you see, gays on average don't have the financial burden to raise children, so as a result, most are upwardly mobile and can throw their money at legislators to get their way. Gays could care less about conservative religious polygamists, who are the worst of the worst.

2. You say just go to a private school if you want a decent education? Well let's attempt to use our brain for a little bit, shall we? Which public schools are the worst public schools? Are they not the poor inner city public schools? I know because I've visited them. They are akin to an inner city prison for children. It is there that they are introduced to gangs and drugs and most of the girls wind up pregnant. All the doors are chain linked, except the entrance, where there is a guard and a metal detector to stop student from carrying in guns and knives. Unfortunately for poor folk, they are unable financially to move to a rich school district nor can they afford a private school. Moreover, most of the poor parents are not even educated enough to know what exactly they are doing to their children by sending them to inner city public school prisons. I do know one couple that lived in a poor inner city district, so they moved from their house and rented a small cramped apartment in a better school district. They were miserable where they lived but at least their children had a shot at getting a decent education instead of being educated in living a life of crime. Of course, most of these children in the inner city are minorities. I reckon this is the underhanded liberal way to ensure continued segregation of minorities so that their white kids won't have to mingle with them in the nicer school districts.

3. How about instead of focusing on requiring colleges to accept minority students through affirmative action who have not been prepared to compete academically with white kids who have had a silver spoon in their mouths their whole lives, perhaps we could give them a decent public education and let the chips fall where they may. I recently heard of a poor Asian kid who had a perfect score on the SAT and a 4.0 average, but could not get into Yale because they had a quota for accepting blacks. this is the insanity that is caused by liberal programs.

4. The US has an ample military to defend itself and to destroy the entire globe about 4 times over. However, it is Progressives in both parties who insist on "leading" the world. In other words, they insist on being the military policeman. If Hillary had been elected, she would have instituted a no fly zone in Syria, which as we learned with Obama in Libya, is code for war and overthrowing a dictator so ISIS can move in and take over. Do you want to know the problem with liberals such as yourself? You support big government at home but not abroad, and the problem with Republicans is that they support big government abroad but not at home. Well guess what dingleberries, once you create big government, once you create that Frankenstein, then it does as it pleases and will continue to be involved in both. Wilson and FDR created a war conquering military machine that has gone nonstop since its creation. Now they don't even bother declaring war. Of course, you have no problem with WW1, WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam war, and the Libyan war being started by Dims, eh?

Woops! Looks like you stepped in a pile of poo. Sorry bout that.

You've actually proven many of my points, and continued with your right wing lies.

Inner city schools are the WORST because they have the LEAST FUNDING. The US is the only first world country other than Turkey which funds public schools based on local property taxes. Inner city schools have the lowest tax base and hence the lowest level of funding. Many are lacking computer labs, or even sufficient books for students. Many white areas in the south are incorporating as separate communities within the communities to ensure that their tax dollars are never spent on poor kids.

I know public school teachers in rural white areas who are buying supplies for their classrooms because they have no funds to do so. And their students are sharing textbooks too. This is no way to teach students.

And no - progressives don't want to rule the world. They want the US to STOP getting involved in other people's messes. The ONLY reason Obama went into Libya was because the US asked NATO to intervene. He did so on a very limited basis, and got out when it ended. Given the ultimate outcome, he now regrets having done so and has publically admitted that.

As for Clinton, I have seen no evidence that she would be attacking the world willy nilly. She couldn't possibly be doing a worse job than Trump is doing militarily. You're banned from attacking terrorist sites in Yemen, and Trump killed more Syria civilians in the month of March than Assad, the Russians or ISIS. And you wonder why Muslims hate Americans.

Trump bombed both Assad's air force base (with NO intention of doing damage), but warned the Russians ahead of time so Assad moved his planes and his people. He bombed Afghanistan, and then threatened NK. All of which was done with absolutely no attempt at diplomacy.

The last Democrat President to start or escalate a war was Johnson in Viet Nam (started under Eisenhauer), but unlike Democrats, every Republican since Nixon has started a war or conflict. Nixon - Cambodia, Reagan - Granada, Bush I - Gulf War, Bush II - Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that Democrats are aggressively militaristic is to be wilfully blind. Trump ran on a policy of building up the military. History tells us that every Republican military build-up leads to another Republican war. Gotta play with all the new toys after all.

Right wing lies? I said that inner city schools are hell holes and are all in poor neighborhoods. You agree with me but add that it's because of local property taxes? How was I then lying exactly? The only tax voters get to vote on directly is whether or not to educate our children. How quaint. And here is the big shocker, the poor never vote to raise them but the rich greedy white folk do?

As for your avoidance of putting both party's at fault for the wars abroad is duly noted. I make no distinction between Progs in both party's as where you seem inclined to paint one good and the other bad. Shocking! In fact, Obama broke the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress of his war in Libya after so many days into the conflict. His defense was, it was not really a war. Talk about liars! Of course, you don't think he lied, do you tool?

So Obama feels bad about it does he? Well that's just great, and it looks like you have forgiven him but not Republicans for all the wars abroad. How insightful.

As I said, once you create an all powerful federal government, there is no controlling it no matter which party is at the helm. That is something you fail to admit, among other things.

We have a Second Amendment. Why do we need the cost of alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror? There is no exigency for that right wing, paranoia induced, fantasy; we have a Commerce Clause.

Lower Taxes and Laissez-fair laziness, all the way, right wingers.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Kennedys = Bushes

That was by design. The born-rich leaders on both fake sides want to destroy the middle class, the Right from Wall Street down and the Left from the ghetto up. The Right secretly believes, "I've got mine, and I'm not going to let you get yours," while the Left preaches, "I've got mine, and I'm going to give yours away."

Our received political ideas remind me of a cartoon about a medieval battle where the two sides' flags were exactly the same. But if you looked at the stick-figure emblem from right to left, it was a duck; from left to right, it was a rabbit.

It's ever been thus.

Our form of government was designed to mitigate the influence, corruption and ruling whims of the powerful such as we've seen in monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies.

The "Framers" Framed Us


You're blaming the victims of that anti-democratic manifesto. The Founding Fodder wanted to protect their oligarchy against both monarchy and democracy. Mission accomplished.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What if taxpayers were allowed to put on their 1040s what percentage of their taxes should go to each government- spending sector? Those who wanted to destroy Islam could assign 100% of their taxes to the Defense Department; a feralphile could pay for welfare moochers with his own money, not ours.

On a side note - After 8 years of progressivism in the WH, 8 years of progressive leadership in the Senate, and 4 years of Pelosi leadership in the House - income inequality/disparity, one of Holy Grails of the movement - decreased considerably! j/k no, it didn't.

Kennedys = Bushes

That was by design. The born-rich leaders on both fake sides want to destroy the middle class, the Right from Wall Street down and the Left from the ghetto up. The Right secretly believes, "I've got mine, and I'm not going to let you get yours," while the Left preaches, "I've got mine, and I'm going to give yours away."

Our received political ideas remind me of a cartoon about a medieval battle where the two sides' flags were exactly the same. But if you looked at the stick-figure emblem from right to left, it was a duck; from left to right, it was a rabbit.

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Instead, you cover your own feelings of insecurity and ignorance by pretending you know ALL, and completely ignoring the utter disaster that has been Republican economic policies, and Republican foreign policy - stock market crashes and endless wars is no way to run a prosperous country.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

begging the question is the only way, the right wing can be right, twice a day.

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

Marbury v. Madison begged the question. SCROTUS interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Redfish]

The last Democrat President to start or escalate a war was Johnson in Viet Nam (started under Eisenhauer), but unlike Democrats, every Republican since Nixon has started a war or conflict. Nixon - Cambodia, Reagan - Granada, Bush I - Gulf War, Bush II - Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that Democrats are aggressively militaristic is to be wilfully blind. Trump ran on a policy of building up the military. History tells us that every Republican military build-up leads to another Republican war. Gotta play with all the new toys after all.

Also Bush I: Panama, a blatantly illegal action. And Reagan funded contras and propped up Bin Laden.

Jimmy Carter notes that his administration never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. That's not true of any other POTUS since Herbert Hoover. That's part of why the war nuts try to portray him as a "failure" --- he didn't give 'em a war to play with.

did you miss the gas lines and the failed hostage rescue?

 

[Redfish]

Obama just got 400K to give a speech to wall street bankers-------------but he is all for the common man, right? you libs live in a fantasy world.

 

[Redfish]

What if taxpayers were allowed to put on their 1040s what percentage of their taxes should go to each government- spending sector? Those who wanted to destroy Islam could assign 100% of their taxes to the Defense Department; a feralphile could pay for welfare moochers with his own money, not ours.

On a side note - After 8 years of progressivism in the WH, 8 years of progressive leadership in the Senate, and 4 years of Pelosi leadership in the House - income inequality/disparity, one of Holy Grails of the movement - decreased considerably! j/k no, it didn't.

Kennedys = Bushes

That was by design. The born-rich leaders on both fake sides want to destroy the middle class, the Right from Wall Street down and the Left from the ghetto up. The Right secretly believes, "I've got mine, and I'm not going to let you get yours," while the Left preaches, "I've got mine, and I'm going to give yours away."

Our received political ideas remind me of a cartoon about a medieval battle where the two sides' flags were exactly the same. But if you looked at the stick-figure emblem from right to left, it was a duck; from left to right, it was a rabbit.

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Instead, you cover your own feelings of insecurity and ignorance by pretending you know ALL, and completely ignoring the utter disaster that has been Republican economic policies, and Republican foreign policy - stock market crashes and endless wars is no way to run a prosperous country.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

begging the question is the only way, the right wing can be right, twice a day.

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

Marbury v. Madison begged the question. SCROTUS interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.

yes, interpret, not rewrite.

 

[danielpalos]

What if taxpayers were allowed to put on their 1040s what percentage of their taxes should go to each government- spending sector? Those who wanted to destroy Islam could assign 100% of their taxes to the Defense Department; a feralphile could pay for welfare moochers with his own money, not ours.

On a side note - After 8 years of progressivism in the WH, 8 years of progressive leadership in the Senate, and 4 years of Pelosi leadership in the House - income inequality/disparity, one of Holy Grails of the movement - decreased considerably! j/k no, it didn't.

Kennedys = Bushes

That was by design. The born-rich leaders on both fake sides want to destroy the middle class, the Right from Wall Street down and the Left from the ghetto up. The Right secretly believes, "I've got mine, and I'm not going to let you get yours," while the Left preaches, "I've got mine, and I'm going to give yours away."

Our received political ideas remind me of a cartoon about a medieval battle where the two sides' flags were exactly the same. But if you looked at the stick-figure emblem from right to left, it was a duck; from left to right, it was a rabbit.

I wish you idiots on the right would stop trying to tell those on the left what WE believe, because none of you have the first clue. Most of you don't know what the Republican platform actually promotes or does not promote, how can you possible know what others are thinking?

Instead, you cover your own feelings of insecurity and ignorance by pretending you know ALL, and completely ignoring the utter disaster that has been Republican economic policies, and Republican foreign policy - stock market crashes and endless wars is no way to run a prosperous country.

And blaming the poor is getting so old. They're not the ones in control. They're not the ones getting richer every single year.

begging the question is the only way, the right wing can be right, twice a day.

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

Marbury v. Madison begged the question. SCROTUS interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.

Why shouldn't the Supreme Court adjudicate our supreme law of the land?

The legislature only legislates.

 

[danielpalos]

The last Democrat President to start or escalate a war was Johnson in Viet Nam (started under Eisenhauer), but unlike Democrats, every Republican since Nixon has started a war or conflict. Nixon - Cambodia, Reagan - Granada, Bush I - Gulf War, Bush II - Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that Democrats are aggressively militaristic is to be wilfully blind. Trump ran on a policy of building up the military. History tells us that every Republican military build-up leads to another Republican war. Gotta play with all the new toys after all.

Also Bush I: Panama, a blatantly illegal action. And Reagan funded contras and propped up Bin Laden.

Jimmy Carter notes that his administration never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. That's not true of any other POTUS since Herbert Hoover. That's part of why the war nuts try to portray him as a "failure" --- he didn't give 'em a war to play with.

did you miss the gas lines and the failed hostage rescue?

I really miss our failed Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).

 

[Richard-H]

From near as I can tell, there are 4 pillars of Progressivism which is their foundation. All four of these pillars is an assault on the Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution is a document that attempted to create a government that is limited. In other words, those in government are viewed as not having any superior intellectual capacity or righteous character than the average citizen. Such outrageous thinking must be destroyed so that every aspect in our lives is overseen and regulated by government who are the master race. Why without Big Brother monitoring our every move, we would all be dying in the streets as we render the planet inhabitable environmentally.

1. Illegal Immigration. Illegal immigration is the first pillar. It carries with it the notion that borders are not needed. We hear many Progs today say as much. So if there are no borders, then there are no sovereign nations. If there are no sovereign nations, then the Republic becomes obsolete, along with its documents such as the Constitution. Then an all powerful world government can be set up with a more "enlightened" Constitution that will be offered.

2. Massive debt. Massive debt will eventually destroy the Republic. It is not a matter of if, but when. No nation can continue trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. How they got this far is nothing short of a miracle. And as the Republic folds, again, so do it's documents.

3. Assault on Christianity. Many think that morality and government are separate, but in reality, all laws represent a moral code. Moreover, only a moral society can be trusted with freedom. As Ben Franklin once said, "In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think that a General government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as toned despotic government, being incapable of any other." If society loses its moral soul and becomes a nation of convicts, then a warden is required to maintain order. Ripping morality out of schools and the rest of society is key to their cause. It's like I've always said, prison is a Prog utopia. Everyone has equal housing, dress, food, education, and health care and all of it is free. Not only that, these are "gun free zones" and every day is a gay pride day.

4. Centralized all powerful government. The last pillar upon which Progressivism rests is an all powerful centralized government. The only time this is not embraced is when it infringes upon one of the other pillars. For you see Progs today run around chanting state rights when it comes to illegal drug legalization or moving illegals around from sanctuary city to sanctuary city. For example, refeer use is a federal crime, as is illegal immigration. Progs are simply openly defying these rules of law as states like Colorado legalize the use of reefer or cities openly declare themselves a refuge for illegals. However, when it comes to any other issue, state rights go bye, bye. Instead, with Obama in office writing EO's that violate federal law on such things as immigration, then all of a sudden the federal government becomes the ultimate authority again. Then when states like Arizona try and stand up to enforce immigration laws on the books, they get sued by Obama and company and forced to comply with the law,. We have now become a nation of men, not laws, which further degrades the Constitution as a meaningless document to be reinterpreted awayor simply ignored by Progs to the point where no one even refers to it anymore.

Zero for four! You don't have a clue what Progressivism is about!

Perhaps you should stop listening to performance artists, or at least stop taking what they say seriously....

 

[Redfish]

The last Democrat President to start or escalate a war was Johnson in Viet Nam (started under Eisenhauer), but unlike Democrats, every Republican since Nixon has started a war or conflict. Nixon - Cambodia, Reagan - Granada, Bush I - Gulf War, Bush II - Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that Democrats are aggressively militaristic is to be wilfully blind. Trump ran on a policy of building up the military. History tells us that every Republican military build-up leads to another Republican war. Gotta play with all the new toys after all.

Also Bush I: Panama, a blatantly illegal action. And Reagan funded contras and propped up Bin Laden.

Jimmy Carter notes that his administration never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. That's not true of any other POTUS since Herbert Hoover. That's part of why the war nuts try to portray him as a "failure" --- he didn't give 'em a war to play with.

did you miss the gas lines and the failed hostage rescue?

I really miss our failed Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).

it ended WW2 saving thousands of American and Japanese lives. BTW, Truman was a democrat.