[spence]

I don't have a lot of time, but here are a few comments...

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

It is certainly true that liberal/progressives' policy beliefs are deeply held, problem is, they can only be superficially defended because their positions rest on no concrete foundation.

This statement is quite contradictory. The notion that a belief is "deeply held" implies it's part of a foundation.

Liberal/progressives go on and on about "values" and frankly I'm shocked that Spence actually used the word "principles," -- for that concept is usually at odds with the liberal/progressive agenda. . . .

This makes no sense, unless your assertion is that a liberal/progressive agenda is formed via a random process.

What you are doing is declaring words or ideas to be invalid based on your personal judgment. It's called hubris.

Having "values" allows one to just know certain things to be true; but you also know that at any time they may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection. That's why any challenge to a liberal/progressive to defend their positions is met immediately with anger and vitriol because that challenge is perceived as a personal attack on one's "feelings" and not simply an intellectual challenge to logically defend policy stances in reasoned debate.

This is a circular argument based on talk radio stereotypes. Perhaps you're just picking debates with lightweights who have never thought about what they believe?

To me though, the most dangerous attributes liberal/progressives exhibit is they espouse positions in direct opposition to the fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality. That their general political philosophy is at odds with our fundamental republican constitutional principles is most evident in their concept of "rights."

The fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality were radically progressive ideas at the time. Had the founding fathers felt the Constitution was perfect they wouldn't have allowed for it to be amended.

In Obama's view, rights should be redefined into special grants of power to compel others to act. This line of thought is a product of fundamentally communitarian ideals and is a political offspring of the 1917 Soviet Revolution.

Wasn't this proposed by FDR? He was a commie???

I think Obama was getting at the notion that change via the courts alone isn't always practical. This is a pretty common remark by civil rights advocates and in that context does have some merit.

That doesn't stop...blah...blah...blah...The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges and entitlements that, upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our "rights" upon us.

Again you speak as if there's no principals behind the proposed actions. One doesn't have to subscribe to Leninism to believe that we are sometimes better served when we act as a team.

-spence