It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can't a "Progressive" also be a "Patriot"?

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oh yes, my position of authority as...what...the King of the internet? The dictator of ATS?

Never forget that people believe themselves to be mind readers, that they can magically tell what others want over the internet.

It's fantasy, not reality.




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
The bill of rights defines what liberties citizens of the united states are afforded by the government.

You have this wrong! The Constitution and Bill of Rights limits the power of the government, not the people. The government didn't give these to the people.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: RavensEdge

Welcome to ATS.

I guess you are replying to hubris from page 1? He typed this statement about the bill of rights, which you have copied. So - how does this relate to patriots and progressives?


(Hint: when you see a post you'd like to reply to, click on the "reply" button; to enter the comment to which you are referring, use "quote" - so we all know what you're trying to say.)


edit on 1/8/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


My mistake. I thought we were talking about progressives and progressivism, not "progress".

Sorry, Les - but...
how is there a difference?


Progressivism assumes that that the progressives know all of paths of progress, which path is best, and what should be done to move as fast as desired on the correct path.

No one knows those answers.

Progressivism is a con job.

Progress, on the other hand, is a result of accumulated knowledge, used by individuals, in ways often unforeseen by the conventional wisdom -- or in the case of Progressivism, unforeseen by the ruling progressives.

Progress happens from freedom of action.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Only progressives consider what they are doing "progress".

Again, forgive me for not comprehending......

Progress is a term that means 'move forward.'

Can you explain to me how stagnating in the ideas of a long-gone century is human progress?


The Whig theory of history is that the present is always better than the past. The Whigs were always touting stronger central authority. Progressivism sold stronger central authority to the voters.

As it turned out, the Industrial Revolution alone enabled the world we have today. The Whigs, Progressives, and all other centralizers had nothing positive to do with that.

The goals of progressivism are desirable and understandable, but by what method does progressivism mean to attain them?

By the Way, the last century of stagnation was due to the progressives. WW1, WW2, and the Great Depression are centralizer phenomena.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

But when you consider the well-being of everyone, it is well-being in your opinion.


In my professional opinion, yes.

When corporations like Walmart and McDonalds are failing to provide a living wage to their employees, and MY TAX DOLLARS are going toward the difference - I object.




Tax dollars go there because of past progressive victories.

Progressivism, as a centralizing influence supporting the fiat money, has reduced the income of every American by 95% since 1913, by way of inflation.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The point of government is in the COTUS. General welfare does not mean providing for all your needs on a federal level.

If we were to have such programs, they should have been implemented at a state level on a state by state basis. That is what federalism is.

The actual federal government was never intended to be what it has become.


That's your interpretation. I interpret "general welfare" to mean "the needs of the citizens".

"Wants" and "needs" are 2 completely different things, though. I think "needs" should be nationalized, while "wants" can stay capitalist.


If general welfare meant that the gov could do whatever, with no constraint, then why is there a Constitution at all?

The problem is that no one knows the way everything should go. Not the voters. Not the Gov. Not the church. The only way to improve things is by action, and freedom allows the most action.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Since words are defined by usage,

Yes a progressive can be a patriot. During WW1, patriots were progressives.

Patriotism, in its fundamental best light, is a form of charity in which the patriot is aware of the larger scheme of civilization and gives some of his time and resources when needed to help his homeland fight off threats of conquest.

Intention and charity are the bottom line of the good patriotism.

However, patriotism also means jingoism, playing at empire building.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Progressivism is action, experimentation. It is not in itself an ideology. It has found a home in liberalism, perhaps because that ideology offers it the most chances to experiment.

Progressive liberals can indeed find compromise with pragmatic conservatives (p-c), but since our traditional notion of compromise was deemed unacceptable for p-c's since the 1990s, we are now left with an unwillingness to compromise out of fear of retribution intra-party and a dysfunctional notion of compromise found in abusive relationships...."do as i say", which leaves few areas and numbers for solutions based on compromise.

For further reading

[M]ost progressives derive their values and ideals from liberalism.... The problems progressives most often address are grounded in timeless liberal values: the social contract, positive and negative liberty, and equality of opportunity. But the progressive method is a search for solutions that offer the most help and the least harm, based on the best available evidence, and for the specific conditions being addressed.



The Progressive Era addressed many societal problems, from business monopolies to corporate corruption, sanitation to education, law enforcement to food safety, and worker’s rights to women’s suffrage. Any one of those could serve as an exemplar for the progressive method, but Prohibition offers the clearest example precisely because it was a mistake.



In today’s political dialogue, focused on uncompromising devotion to ideological principles, the progressives who recognized the failure of Prohibition and turned to work for its repeal might be derided as “squishes.”

But that willingness to recognize the complex and changing dimensions of problems, and reject solutions that don’t work, are hallmarks of the progressive method.

Consider this statement by the Center for American Progress’ John Halprin:

"At its core, progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society. […]

Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept … that accepts the world as dynamic."



Indeed healthy skepticism, including self-skepticism, is another hallmark of the progressive method. Many of our worst mistakes, individually and collectively, have their roots in unfounded certainty. Conservatives deride that progressive skepticism as abandoning a “natural moral order” they presume to be eternal and enshrined in the Constitution as it was originally intended and/or understood. But progressives recognize that letting the dead rule the living is not self-government, especially as the dead disagreed with each other.

The progressive method is optimistic – but not utopian – precisely because it recognizes that the work “to form a more perfect Union” must be carried on by each generation of “We the People” … searching for solutions to the problems we face, using the best information we can gather, in our time.

source

I find nothing in the above that would make Progressives unpatriotic.
edit on 8-1-2016 by desert because: add bold



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The point of government is in the COTUS. General welfare does not mean providing for all your needs on a federal level.

If we were to have such programs, they should have been implemented at a state level on a state by state basis. That is what federalism is.

The actual federal government was never intended to be what it has become.


That's your interpretation. I interpret "general welfare" to mean "the needs of the citizens".

"Wants" and "needs" are 2 completely different things, though. I think "needs" should be nationalized, while "wants" can stay capitalist.


If general welfare meant that the gov could do whatever, with no constraint, then why is there a Constitution at all?

The problem is that no one knows the way everything should go. Not the voters. Not the Gov. Not the church. The only way to improve things is by action, and freedom allows the most action.


WTH? I didn't say that. How did you get that out of what I typed? This is what I said:


That's your interpretation. I interpret "general welfare" to mean "the needs of the citizens".

"Wants" and "needs" are 2 completely different things, though. I think "needs" should be nationalized, while "wants" can stay capitalist.

I literally said "wants can stay capitalist". "Needs" are things like sewage systems & clean water, public transportation, health care, roads, schools, basic housing and basic food supplies. So we'd have nationalized food banks for the basics (rice, beef/chicken, beans, cereal, etc.), but still allow individuals & organizations to form for-profit restaurants & fast food chains. Or surgery for a broken bone would be part of the public health care system, while cosmetic surgery would be at your own expense.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Why do you object to pitching in for those who are unable to cope on their own?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A Patriot is someone who loves their country and it's ideals. I love my wife and have since I married her. She has changed over time...physically, her views, etc. but I still and always will love her. What I never did was decide that she required "fundamental change" to become acceptable. I have never been ashamed of her. I have never said that I hate her or wish to leave her. I would die for her...I would climb a mountain (and probably die in the process) for her...and I relish every moment with her.

How many liberals...or progressives can claim the same for our country? Not many that I know. Therefore...they don't love her and therefore are not Patriots.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: RavensEdge
The bill of rights defines what liberties citizens of the united states are afforded by the government.

You have this wrong! The Constitution and Bill of Rights limits the power of the government, not the people. The government didn't give these to the people.



And you know this shouldn't even be a question!



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You must not know many liberals then.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I never thought of it that way!

"Our greatest battles lie ahead. All is newness now, (presenting) the possibility of great and fundamental change.

We can change America forever."*

Ronald Reagan was a progressive liberal?? Ronnie, why did you hate America so much? The RR Foundation And Library better not host any more Patriot Tours!

*Words of RR from Jan 1985



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A Patriot is someone who loves their country and it's ideals. I love my wife and have since I married her. She has changed over time...physically, her views, etc. but I still and always will love her. What I never did was decide that she required "fundamental change" to become acceptable. I have never been ashamed of her. I have never said that I hate her or wish to leave her. I would die for her...I would climb a mountain (and probably die in the process) for her...and I relish every moment with her.

How many liberals...or progressives can claim the same for our country? Not many that I know. Therefore...they don't love her and therefore are not Patriots.

Going by this answer, that means you agree with my earlier posts that it's not patriotic to prepare to go to war against the country you supposedly love, just as it is isn't patriotic to threaten to secede from the country that you supposedly love.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
A "patriot" of what? OP, what are you "progressing" to/toward? Have the "patriots" of your/the passed, failed you?
I'll gamble and say, you don't want a truthful answer... Because you couldn't handle the truth. But I really have no emotion for you..so here it is. Truth is? No!
OP, you knew the answer, when you asked...
You're not stupid, just ignorant.
But a "progressive" can be a revolutionary. (I know, sounds gloriously Communist and "educated ").. You seem educated. Having, asked such a simple question...I leave you to your own devices and the scholars of ATS.
edit on 8-1-2016 by murphy22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The gov can't constitutionally do what you want unless the "general welfare" clause give the gov the ability to do anything.

Logically, every progressive assumes that the gov can control any facet of life. The Constitution is written in opposition to that view.

"A government big enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take everything away"



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Why do you object to pitching in for those who are unable to cope on their own?


Have you stopped beating your wife?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The gov can't constitutionally do what you want unless the "general welfare" clause give the gov the ability to do anything.

Logically, every progressive assumes that the gov can control any facet of life. The Constitution is written in opposition to that view.

"A government big enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take everything away"


Huh? Not once but twice I've stated exactly what I meant. Yet both times, you've twisted my words beyond recognition.

Our governments already handle many of the things I stated are "needs". Roads, public transportation, public education, and water supplies/sewage systems being the most obvious examples. And they also handle the basic need of "food" through food assistance programs. And they also handle some aspects of health care through Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. And guess what, they also handle many aspects of public housing for the needy through Section 8 housing (and other programs, I think).

In other words, my proposals are just to strengthen what's already in existence for the most part. So why do you keep reading that, and then claiming that means I think a government must have the power to do everything first? That's not what I'm saying in the least.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join