Passionate pre-election opinion of prominent Democrat

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Who said that conservatives are happy about what Progressives have done to this country?

What a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. In the past 100 years you claim "progressives" have influenced our country we've become the most powerful nation on the planet, cleaned up so much of our environment, got rid of child labor, reduced poverty, worked to defeat multiple enemies, advanced healthcare, invested in science which has driven corporate innovation, rocked the best legal system in existence, expanded civil liberties etc... etc... etc...

Our country is great, largely because of progressive thinking. We can do a lot better but the proof is in the putting.

How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?

I live in CT (an extremely progressive state), and pay $900 more a month in taxes, than I would if I lived in NH. So you tell me...

And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I live in CT (an extremely progressive state), and pay $900 more a month in taxes, than I would if I lived in NH. So you tell me...

And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father

More parents here that you could ask https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...gh-victims.htm
If we are going to label a group based on an incident, there is plenty to go around

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

More parents here that you could ask https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...gh-victims.htm
If we are going to label a group based on an incident, there is plenty to go around

I didn’t label any group. Spence asked what harm has come to anyone from progressive ideas. The progressive notion of sanctuary cities led directly to kate steinles death, and you can deny that until you are blue, but it’s true. It’s also true that liberalism has led to crushing taxes in my home state of ct, and if Spence doesn’t think that causes harm, that shows you how aloof he is.

What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Don't forget they invented the unisex bathroom and sanctuary cities too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. In the past 100 years you claim "progressives" have influenced our country we've become the most powerful nation on the planet,

There have always been a "most powerful nation on the planet." Dictatorships, monarchies, republics, etc. have all been powerful and even the most powerful. The Founders defeated a monarchy that was reputed to be the most powerful military on earth. Power is not a unique result of Progressivism, nor would we not be powerful under our pre-Progressive constitutional Republic. We, no doubt, would be as powerful or more.

cleaned up so much of our environment, got rid of child labor, reduced poverty, worked to defeat multiple enemies, advanced healthcare, invested in science which has driven corporate innovation, rocked the best legal system in existence,

Advancements in science, environmental improvement, more efficient ways to use labor, have happened throughout human history, and have not depended on Progressive politics nor were hindered by our pre-Progressive government. Humanitarianism, compassion, welfare for the needy, military power,again, are not Progressive creations. Corporate innovation, market innovation and wealth, free enterprise, are not Progressive creations, nor dependent on Progressive politics except as part of the Big Business/Big government Complex. On the contrary, they could be overall, a lot better if the populace/market was less regulated by Progressive need for control. And the best legal system in existence was not created by Progressivism. On the contrary, Progressivism is dismantling that system bit by bit and replacing it with top down control.

expanded civil liberties etc... etc... etc...

Civil liberties have been contracted, not expanded. Slavery was abolished before Progressivism. Women's suffrage started in states before Progressivism. Those were not Progressive brainchildren. Racial equality was instituted by law before Progressivism. Progressive type liberties such as those for newly created genders (which didn't exist pre-Progressivism) imposed restrictions on others and divided us by creating protected classes with special rights. Gay marriage was not an expansion of civil liberties. It was a redefinition of marriage for the purpose of expanding the class of people who could get government benefits through marriage. Homosexuals could live and love together without labeling it marriage. Though homo-sexuals were more widely discriminated against during pre-Progressivism and also for most of the Progressive era, and even banned and prosecuted in various communities, they weren't in others. It was only a matter of time with science and cultural advances (that were constantly happening throughout history and not dependent on Progressivism) that such draconian policies and practices would be challenged legally by using the legal, pre-Progressive, constitutional avenues.

Our country is great, largely because of progressive thinking. We can do a lot better but the proof is in the putting.

How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?

It was great before Progressivism. Progressivism is not the reason our country is great. Progressive thinking is not a product of Progressivism. Nor vice versa. Actual progress, and progressive thinking advanced fairly steadily, with a few bumps in certain areas, throughout history, and are far more advanced by individual freedom than by government control. Progressivism as a political philosophy and system is not progressive in the literal, non-political meaning of the word. It was an erroneous, self-aggrandizing, label created by the founders of the movement. They thought they were the next synthesis of evolutionary human social and governmental progress.

Progressivism is not actually progressive as a political system. It is a newer, gentler (for the time being), version of past authoritarian regimes. The notion that it is the reason for human progress is, as you put it, a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. It has pretty much managed to flourish on the bedrock of this nation's founding.

It developed in ascendance starting slowly, then more quickly over time toward its present dominance. And as it is reaching its apex of power, it's growing, massive and unwieldy structure is beginning to be exposed by things like those that concern Pete F, such as Corporatism (Big Government/Big Busaness complex), disappearance of the middle class, and "income inequality." It is also crumbling into the fissures of division by race, gender, income level, class struggle, expansion of government dependence, destruction and minimization of individual motivation, atomization of national culture creating culture wars, descent into a meaningless Post Modern relativism with its psychological stresses, alienation, futile wars, unsustainable government debt, I would add godlessness but that would be considered a plus by Post Modern, Social Marxist, Progressive relativists.

[Sea Dangles]

Boom
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Now that is called progressive thinking

And you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Antifa is good and you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Antifa is good and you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't say I advocate violent protest but the whole Antifa thing is mostly just a Trump deke.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Can't say I advocate violent protest but the whole Antifa thing is mostly just a Trump deke.

Man, you're really out of touch. Antifa "activism" was an issue before trump, correctly, latched on to it. Several "conservative's" who attempted to speak on college campuses were harassed and stopped and violently attacked by Antifa before Trump became President and before he said anything about it.

I can understand, though, if you're ignorant of the significant Antifa violence and harassment pre-Trump since the mainstream media reported little to nothing about it. Trump helped to bring attention to what the media preferred not to mention. Most of us who don't turn our nose up at the alternative media knew about this stuff well before Trump said anything.

Media inattention was the deke.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Man, you're really out of touch. Antifa "activism" was an issue before trump, correctly, latched on to it. Several "conservative's" who attempted to speak on college campuses were harassed and stopped and violently attacked by Antifa before Trump became President and before he said anything about it.

Yea, it's such a shame people would be motivated by anti-Nazi intentions. What are they thinking? How many violent Antifa events happened before Trump came to the political stage? Why is Trump using them as a foil to legitimize nationalists racist groups?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, it's such a shame people would be motivated by anti-Nazi intentions. What are they thinking? How many violent Antifa events happened before Trump came to the political stage? Why is Trump using them as a foil to legitimize nationalists racist groups?

The speakers they shouted down or attacked on campuses are not Nazis. Nor does Antifa oppose only Nazis.

Synopsis from Wikipedia:
"The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their opposition to fascism through the use of direct action. They engage in militant protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically."

Their choice of name is ironic. They are more fascistic than many of those they attack or shut down.

It's a shame that you use them as a foil to legitimize anti-capitalists, anarchists, communists, and socialists who destroy property, do physical violence, and shut down the speech of conservatives.

Trump does not legitimize racism or white supremacism. Those allegations are propagandistic twisting of his words in order to demonize him.

[Pete F.]

Last I knew nobody, with few exceptions, is required by the government to live anywhere in the USA. If the taxes in your state are too high or you feel something is wrong there you can get involved in politics, move or whine about it.
Blaming progressive political legislation for black fathers not being responsible for their children is interesting. Is this fathering while black?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Last I knew nobody, with few exceptions, is required by the government to live anywhere in the USA. If the taxes in your state are too high or you feel something is wrong there you can get involved in politics, move or whine about it.
Blaming progressive political legislation for black fathers not being responsible for their children is interesting. Is this fathering while black?

You guys cannot answer a direct question, can you?

I am aware that CT residents can move. I asked if the taxes cause any suffering? Because Spence asked who has suffered at all, because of liberalism.

I take care of my parents. If I moved to NH, I would pocket $900 more a month, every month, for the rest of my life. But my parents would be screwed, That that would cause them harm. Liberalism would cause them harm.

I get it, we all get, it, you and Spence can never, under any circumstances, criticize liberalism.

Pete, it's a yes/no question. Has liberalism in CT caused suffering to any of the citizens? Yes or no? You can't answer by saying "if you don't like it, move". That doesn't answer the question that was asked. And the question I asked, was an exact response to Spence's theory that liberalism never hurt anybody.

I could also ask about babies who survive abortion I guess, and who suffer a lifetime of medical issues and limited opportunities.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Blaming progressive political legislation for black fathers not being responsible for their children is interesting. Is this fathering while black?

Liberals came up with the idea of paying young girls to have babies, and the brilliant idea of paying them more to not marry. When you give someone a financial incentive to engage in a behavior, you will see an increase in that behavior.

The late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was a very liberal senator from NY. In the 1960s, he predicted that liberalism (most of which he supported) was going to cause a large-scale breakup of the black nuclear family, which would be a catastrophe for black culture. He was 100% right.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Liberals came up with the idea of paying young girls to have babies, and the brilliant idea of paying them more to not marry. When you give someone a financial incentive to engage in a behavior, you will see an increase in that behavior.

The late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was a very liberal senator from NY. In the 1960s, he predicted that liberalism (most of which he supported) was going to cause a large-scale breakup of the black nuclear family, which would be a catastrophe for black culture. He was 100% right.

Interesting, I'll have to tell my daughters that they can get paid to have babies. Or is this payment only available if you are black?
Moynihan did not just want to get rid of welfare, he wanted to replace it with a GAI of one type or another. This was proposed by Richard Nixon.
If I remember correctly, the no father requirement was a give back to conservatives to be able to pass the enabling legislation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Interesting, I'll have to tell my daughters that they can get paid to have babies. Or is this payment only available if you are black?
Moynihan did not just want to get rid of welfare, he wanted to replace it with a GAI of one type or another. This was proposed by Richard Nixon.
If I remember correctly, the no father requirement was a give back to conservatives to be able to pass the enabling legislation.

"I'll have to tell my daughters that they can get paid to have babies. Or is this payment only available if you are black?"

It's called welfare, maybe you have heard of it, perhaps not given your responses here. It applies to everyone who is poor. Blacks are poor in much higher numbers, also partly because of liberalism, because liberals want poor people to become addicted to welfare, so that they'll vote for whoever promises them the most.

Moynihan was a die-hard liberal who, unlike most diehard liberals, could still think rationally. That's why he has this one dire warning about liberalism, and no sane person would deny he was correct.

"If I remember correctly, the no father requirement was a give back to conservatives to be able to pass the enabling legislation"

I can't disprove that. I find it hard to believe the conservatives were asking for that, but I have no idea.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Interesting, I'll have to tell my daughters that they can get paid to have babies. Or is this payment only available if you are black?

Progressives are equal opportunity employers of welfare meant to grow government dependence.

Moynihan did not just want to get rid of welfare, he wanted to replace it with a GAI of one type or another. This was proposed by Richard Nixon.

GAI is welfare. It was tried before and failed. That's why Nixon backed off from the proposal.

If I remember correctly, the no father requirement was a give back to conservatives to be able to pass the enabling legislation.

Actually, Federal welfare is a giveback to Progressivism. There is actually no enumerated power in the Constitution to provide federal welfare income to anybody. Federal welfare began under the hyper-Progressive FDR administration.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Blaming progressive political legislation for black fathers not being responsible for their children is interesting. Is this fathering while black?

It's not-fathering while black.

[Pete F.]

Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
What date would you suggest starting to count terrorist acts in the USA?
If you start at 1500 you could start off with millions of natives, or you could start 9/12 and end up with a number. I guess you pick the date that suits your argument.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What date would you suggest starting to count terrorist acts in the USA?
If you start at 1500 you could start off with millions of natives, or you could start 9/12 and end up with a number. I guess you pick the date that suits your argument.

There was no USA in 1500. Ergo, you are considering international stats. If we start at 700 to 1500, internationally, Asians and Africans, and Arabs, I'm guessing, had the most unlawful (depending on who's "law" was being broken) killings meant to terrorize people in order to eliminate opposition to political (depending on your notion of politics) occupation or to submit populations to the political power of the invaders.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There was no USA in 1500. Ergo, you are considering international stats. If we start at 700 to 1500, internationally, Asians and Africans, and Arabs, I'm guessing, had the most unlawful (depending on who's "law" was being broken) killings meant to terrorize people in order to eliminate opposition to political (depending on your notion of politics) occupation or to submit populations to the political power of the invaders.

Since you’re going to spin to fit your viewpoint as usual let’s call it the Americas
The European viewpoint has always been that the other races, religions, peoples were bad and needed to be conquered, our viewpoint and others perception is still that.
You have written here that Muslims are trying to conquer the world and we need to do it first. Or is my understanding of what you have posted incorrect
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since you’re going to spin to fit your viewpoint as usual let’s call it the Americas

Pointing out that there was no USA in 1500 is fact not spin. And it is a relevant fact.

The European viewpoint has always been that the other races, religions, peoples were bad and needed to be conquered, our viewpoint and others perception is still that.

"The European viewpoint" seems to be a spin notion that ties all white people into a convenient group to pin your accusation on. I'm not aware of an actual "European viewpoint." Europeans have considered other Europeans to be bad, and conquered them, and probably killed more Europeans then they did non-Europeans. Europeans, as well, considered other European religions bad and needed to be eliminated or reformed.

And I don't think that "our" (Americans? White people? Christians?)viewpoint is that other races, religions, and peoples are bad and need to be conquered.

I can't speak for all the "others." Fundamentalist Muslims do have the viewpoint you speak of.

You have written here that Muslims are trying to conquer the world and we need to do it first. Or is my understanding of what you have posted incorrect

I have said that the fundamental Islam as portrayed in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunna believes that the world is to be made Islamic. I don't recall saying that we needed to do it first. I don't believe we should conquer the world.

[Pete F.]

It actually was not a dire warning about liberalism, but about the welfare system breaking up the nuclear family. He proposed along with other moderate politicians, of both parties, a Guaranteed Annual Income. This would make it so that if you were down and out, for whatever reason, you would be helped. But it would be advantageous to you financially to work. The current system penalizes recipients for working by it's all or nothing approach. Just more evil moderate stuff.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It actually was not a dire warning about liberalism, but about the welfare system breaking up the nuclear family. He proposed along with other moderate politicians, of both parties, a Guaranteed Annual Income. This would make it so that if you were down and out, for whatever reason, you would be helped. But it would be advantageous to you financially to work. The current system penalizes recipients for working by it's all or nothing approach. Just more evil moderate stuff.

"It actually was not a dire warning about liberalism, but about the welfare system breaking up the nuclear family."

Who was advocating for the welfare that broke up the black nuclear family? The Tea Party? The Amish? Or Democrats?

For you and Spence, every post boils down to conservative=bad., liberal=good. Always, no exceptions.

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1141979]
Who was advocating for the welfare that broke up the black nuclear family? The Tea Party? The Amish? Or Democrats?[\QUOTE]
That radical liberal democrat LBJ in concert with Congress and he did it without twitting by being a great negotiator.
He was such a liberal guy you know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Jim, it's funny how conservative ideas don't always have the intended result and sometimes become the things they want to change.
Look at the history of the family based immigration for a good example.
It was originally passed because the Supreme Court said that you could not exclude certain countries, and could not use quotas.
So they passed new legislation with the theory that if we make it so people can have their relatives come here, most of the immigrants for the past 75 years have been Europeans. We can give them an advantage because we want them, but we can't say that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim, it's funny how conservative ideas don't always have the intended result and sometimes become the things they want to change.
Look at the history of the family based immigration for a good example.
It was originally passed because the Supreme Court said that you could not exclude certain countries, and could not use quotas.
So they passed new legislation with the theory that if we make it so people can have their relatives come here, most of the immigrants for the past 75 years have been Europeans. We can give them an advantage because we want them, but we can't say that.

There is no, actual, constitutional restriction against Federal immigration policies which exclude immigrants or imposing quotas. Activist Judges legislated from the Bench.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim, it's funny how conservative ideas don't always have the intended result and sometimes become the things they want to change.
Look at the history of the family based immigration for a good example.
It was originally passed because the Supreme Court said that you could not exclude certain countries, and could not use quotas.
So they passed new legislation with the theory that if we make it so people can have their relatives come here, most of the immigrants for the past 75 years have been Europeans. We can give them an advantage because we want them, but we can't say that.

I said very explicitly, that conservatism has hurt people. No ideology is perfect. For the 100th time (it's getting tiring, so please try and pay attention) I was responding to Spence, who asked Detbuch who has ever been harmed by progressive ideas? Spence is very clearly under the impression that no one has ever suffered because of liberalism, and I pointed out examples to the contrary. That's all I was doing. I agree with liberals on some big issues (gay marriage, death penalty), but all I was doing here, was pointing out that people have been hurt because of progressive ideology.