Originally Posted by wdmso
ah so now the point emerges
"And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised."
The "point" has not just now emerged. If that is how you read what I said and have been saying, you entirely miss the point. The fundamental transformation that Obama promised is pointless without understanding what the prize for winning is. The "fundamental transformation" was promised and the process was started over a hundred years ago. Obama's personal version of that promise may have shades of difference from the first founders of the Progressive movement, but the ultimate goal is to discard original constitutional government and replace it with what is called an administrative State. That is not some delusion roaming in my head. It is historical fact. Its been discussed in depth by some of us on this forum. Maybe you didn't read the posts. Maybe you did and found them unconvincing. But history happens whether you believe it or not.
You seem to be stuck on the partisan argument it's the progressives Fault as if Republicans have never held office
The divide is not between Progressives and Republicans. The first Progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt, was a Republican. Many Republicans, including those who are considered the "establishment" in the party are progressively oriented. Most are not as fully so as Democrat politicians are, but enough so that they are at least quasi-Progressive.
The distinction would be between Progressivism and a constitutionally oriented Conservatism.
Then all I can suggest go back to September 17, 1787 when it was signed to your utopia America..
Those who founded this nation where under no illusion that utopia is possible. Their political philosophy was grounded in human nature and nature as a whole--including all its warts and dystopian tendencies. The Progressives, on the other hand, believe that nature, and human nature, can be molded to fit some social perfection.
Change is inevitable its 2016 But I would say I Have the same freedoms as my father had and his father had his father I cant speak beyond that
No, as JohnR said, you don't. First, understand the difference between intrinsic, fundamental (or unalienable as the founders called them) freedoms and freedom granted by government. In the first, government cannot abridge those freedoms. In the second, government allows them (and can disallow or abridge them when it has an occasion or desire to do so).
You do not have, at this time, the same freedom to speak without government punishment, as your father had. You do not have at this time, the same leeway to practice your religion (or atheism) that your father had. You do not have the same freedom to do what you wish with your property (property of all sorts, material or intellectual) as your father had. And many, many more freedoms that you don't have that your father had, and even less than generations had before your father. This doesn't mean that you, personally, are "suffering" from this diminishment of freedom. But it does mean that, if the occasion arose that you, personally, broke some new tenet the government has created regarding those freedoms, that you can be prosecuted for trespassing what is no longer the unalienable right the original Constitution guaranteed, but what is now a right only, and in-so-far, as the government allows.
To put it simply, there are, in a Progressive form of government, no unalienable rights. All rights are prescribed by government.
Does that mean your life will be miserable, or seem shackled, in that form of government. Not necessarily. The utopian aim of such government is to make your life more equitably possible. It would be foolish for such a government not to allow you latitude to live some semblance of personal ownership. But that form of government will continue to need a reason to exist. Governments which maintain a base in individual freedom are far more self-sustainable, even with inevitable change. But the more that government assumes the responsibility over your life, the greater it will have the need to overcome the inevitable natural conflicts, especially with inevitable change. It will constantly be at war with natural instincts to own ones life, and will have to constantly convince you that it is making your life sustainable due to its efforts because you are not capable of doing so yourself. So, the more it will have to cement its ownership of your life. The progressive idea is that the government ownership will always be, what it considers, benevolent. Of course, once government owns you, the new owners may not be so benevolent. When you trade Constitutionalism for Progressivism, you lose your guarantees to rights and freedoms. You are at the mercy of government which is founded on "expert" central bureaucrats, not on your own choices and abilities.
But I would say they all had the same conversation about the Constitution some time during their Lives .. with wars and race and immigration these conversations come with Change Conversation with Armed Men like in Oregon is a Hostage negotiation hiding behind the Constitutional right of protest
|