national murder rate highest in 25 years

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Academia has a politically Progressive bias, not a politically liberal bias. Progressivism is not liberal in the classical sense of that word. Progressivism is authoritarian in its nature.

If you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.

You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a #^&#^&#^&#^&. And not giving a #^&#^&#^&#^& is not progressive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.

You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a #^&#^&#^&#^&. And not giving a #^&#^&#^&#^& is not progressive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In other words . . . you admit that Progressivism is authoritarian. And, like all good authoritarians, you claim your brand is for the good of society.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

In other words . . . you admit that Progressivism is authoritarian. And, like all good authoritarians, you claim your brand is for the good of society.

No, do you believe that no social progress is good.
At what point in time should it be halted or do you propose that we be time warped back to?
Are you like some here, wishing for the 50s and Eisenhower…..who identified as a progressive conservative(oops)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, do you believe that no social progress is good.
At what point in time should it be halted or do you propose that we be time warped back to?
Are you like some here, wishing for the 50s and Eisenhower…..who identified as a progressive conservative(oops)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The manner of achieving social progress makes all the difference. And the definition of "progress," like the definition of all socially loaded words can be the propaganda that supports the method.

That's my fortune cookie wisdom. Take it or leave it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.

You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a #^&#^&#^&#^&. And not giving a #^&#^&#^&#^& is not progressive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sure! conservatives HATE equality ( despite opposing slavery and jim crow), conservatives really despise women’s health. we really hate it when women are healthy.

just say “abortion”. if there’s nothing immoral about abortion, why do you feel the need to hide it in a euphemism like “women’s health”?

school equality? sorry, liberals adamantly oppose school choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sure! conservatives HATE equality ( despite opposing slavery and jim crow), conservatives really despise women’s health. we really hate it when women are healthy.

just say “abortion”. if there’s nothing immoral about abortion, why do you feel the need to hide it in a euphemism like “women’s health”?

school equality? sorry, liberals adamantly oppose school choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim,
Radical Republicans ended slavery, not conservatives.
And the end of the Jim Crow era with the aid of the Northern Democrats pushed Southern Conservatives to the Republican Party.

I don’t have any need to hide my views on abortion, I don’t think we’re required to believe in your religion.

Sorry but I think public education is important, not perfect but needed.
Left to their own conservatives would have no federal support for education.
And then if every state was as poorly educated as Republican controlled states, we’d have more Trumps and DeSantis’
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don’t have any need to hide my views on abortion, I don’t think we’re required to believe in your religion.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What a cowardly dodge, and you're smart enough to know it.

We don't differ in "women's health". We differ on abortion. You chose to hide behind a very benign-sounding euphemism, which is what your side does constantly.

Why? Why hide behind the label "choice" or "health"? Obviously, conservatives are in favor of choice and health. I'm not asking you to join my religion, I'm asking why you felt the need to be deceptive about your position.

It's all nonsense.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What a cowardly dodge, and you're smart enough to know it.

We don't differ in "women's health". We differ on abortion. You chose to hide behind a very benign-sounding euphemism, which is what your side does constantly.

Why? Why hide behind the label "choice" or "health"? Obviously, conservatives are in favor of choice and health. I'm not asking you to join my religion, I'm asking why you felt the need to be deceptive about your position.

It's all nonsense.

Jim you’re lost in semantics again, if this was the period between 1591 and 1868 abortion before ensoulment would not be a sin in the eyes of your church.


In no logical world can Roe be overturned without obliterating the separation clause. To outlaw choice with arbitrary definitions of human life based on ancient mythology is to adopt a state religion. This is the real goal of the anti-choice movement. They accepted it long ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device