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: 15
34
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Personally, I feel labels are the problem, not which of them applies to a given individual.

I oppose the death penalty, am persuaded by the preponderance of evidence (in my opinion) that climate change is a reality we need to address, oppose war, support marriage equality, support the LGBT community, support putting a body camera on every LEO, believe in (some forms of) affirmative action, support (some aspects of) feminism, I don't believe in race personally (but acknowledge racism, intersectionality, and oppression, including my own white privilege, despite lamenting it,) don't own or want to own a firearm, believe in global unity and egalitarianism, support "entitlement" programs (life saving welfare in my nomenclature,) I support background checks and what I consider common sense checks and balances with regard to gun ownership, and believe taxes are necessary to fund essential programs and services. I opposed the Iraq war. I support cannabis legalization. I'm pro choice. And I don't believe there's a "war on Christmas."

I must be a liberal right? And yet...

I believe overwhelming force should and must be brought to bear against ISIS and any such implacable foe with which coexistence proves impossible, as the most humanitarian thing to do once this occurs is to eliminate the threat as quickly as possible, with as little loss of life as possible - not tap away with ineffectual air strikes for years. I believe in the second amendment, and that occasional mass shootings are the price of that liberty. I oppose any restrictions on ammunition or firearm "types" such as "assault" weapons. I oppose violating patients' privacy in an effort to restrict their access to owning firearms based on what they "might" do, unless - and ONLY if - there is actual evidence of violent crime. "Likelihood" is not a criminal offense. I believe very strongly in religious freedom, and believe religious institutions should retain their tax exempt status - unless what can demonstrably be verified to be "profit" exists, which I feel new legislation should address and quantify, and in which case they should lose it.

I believe veterans and retirees must be supported, cared for, and have their burdens lessened. I believe freedom of speech means the right to offend, and while I may disagree with what you say, I will defend your right to say it. I believe strict safety and quality standards should be implemented for cannabis where legalized, and lower THC strains should be cultivated for more specifically medicinal use and for first timers, lessening the likelihood of a bad reaction - which contrary to many of my fellow legalization proponents' claims, DOES happen. I feel every abortion is a tragedy and lamentable, despite being pro-choice. And I do not believe "Merry Christmas" is marginalizing or offensive to other faiths or atheists. And on that point... I do not agree with some atheists' incredibly militant disdain for religion as a whole, or their desire to do away with it. (I said some.)

And I didn't vote for Obama. And I won't vote for Hillary.

So am I a liberal with some "conservative" points of view thrown in? I refuse to be called a Libertarian, as I disagree profoundly with many of the Libertarian party's views and positions and even if one can BE a "Libertarian" without affiliation with said party, I don't want that label applied to me. Sorry.

So am a a centrist? I doubt it. I definitely lean far to the left. Am I a socialist? A globalist? A humanist?

I say: I'm a person with nuanced views. That should be sufficient.

Peace.
edit on 1/9/2016 by AceWombat04 because: Paragrahs

edit on 1/9/2016 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Have you stopped beating your wife?

What?

Stopped beating my wife? LOL!!!


now you're just grasping. As was stated above, "a more perfect union" is what we are all aiming for..right?
well, things certainly aren't "perfect" right now. Far from it. Read AceWombat's post - I agree with him totally.
Does that make me a traitor?

Are those the only two choices in your view? To be a "patriot" or a "traitor"? Wow.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
There is a astigmatism associated with "progressive", and "liberal". That most folks here in America simply cannot justify. Many people believe that if you are progressive/ liberal thinking you like the government involved in everything we do as a citizen. Because of the astigmatism associated with liberal and progressive many folks simple do not believe that a progressive person can be a patriot. Patriots did not want to have anything to do with our former type of government. The patriots of that time where completely different than what we think patriots are today. I know I personally struggle trying to separate the two.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63


There is a astigmatism associated with "progressive", and "liberal". That most folks here in America simply cannot justify. Many people believe that if you are progressive/ liberal thinking you like the government involved in everything we do as a citizen. Because of the astigmatism associated with liberal and progressive many folks simple do not believe that a progressive person can be a patriot.


Thanks! I think you are spot on; your use of "astigmatism" is really interesting.
'Astigmatism' is when one's vision is distorted due to the shape of the lens of the eye.
I have an 'astigmatism' in both eyes. I wear corrective lenses for that.

Did you mean "stigma"?

Anyway, either way, it's an ironic use of 'astigmatism' - yes, they come from the same Latin root.......
and then there's "stigmata"........



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

ALso ------

are you a parent?
Just wondering. For my own accumulation of knowledge, if you are a parent.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The groups that are currently at odds with each other have always been there. The Northern economics, culture, and politics vs the Southern economics, culture and politics.


Right now, a lot of our problems stem directly from the fact that the wrong sort [of elite] has finally gotten the upper hand; a particularly brutal and anti-democratic strain of American aristocrat that the other elites have mostly managed to keep away from the levers of power since the Revolution. Worse: this bunch has set a very ugly tone that's corrupted how people with power and money behave in every corner of our culture.


"North versus South: Two Definitions of Liberty" Two definitions of "patriot".


For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige(the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society). While they've done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued them with the belief that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty to do something positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your own legacy depended on this.

versus

that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God.

How liberty is defined by these opposing groups...

In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.



In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.

When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. .... Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule.


How we got here?...


Since shortly after the Revolution, the Yankee elites have worked hard to keep the upper hand on America's culture, economy and politics -- and much of our success as a nation rests on their success at keeping plantation culture sequestered in the South, and its scions largely away from the levers of power.
....
The Civil War was, at its core, a military battle between these two elites for the soul of the country. It pitted the more communalist, democratic and industrialized Northern vision of the American future against the hierarchical, aristocratic, agrarian Southern one. Though the Union won the war, the fundamental conflict at its root still hasn't been resolved to this day. (The current conservative culture war is the Civil War still being re-fought by other means.)

after the Civil War...

it was easy for the Northeast to hold onto cultural, political and economic power as long as all the country's major banks, businesses, universities, and industries were headquartered there. But the New Deal -- and, especially, the post-war interstate highways, dams, power grids, and other infrastructure investments that gave rise to the Sun Belt -- fatally loosened the Yankees' stranglehold on national power. The gleaming new cities of the South and West shifted the American population centers westward, unleashing new political and economic forces with real power to challenge the Yankee consensus. And because a vast number of these westward migrants came out of the South, the elites that rose along with these cities tended to hew to the old Southern code, and either tacitly or openly resist the moral imperatives of the Yankee canon. The soaring postwar fortunes of cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta fed that ancient Barbadian slaveholder model of power with plenty of room and resources to launch a fresh and unexpected 20th-century revival.


sourceto be con'd



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
con'd

T[he South] countered Yankee hegemony by building their own universities, grooming their own leaders and creating their own media. By the 1990s, they were staging the RINO hunts that drove the last Republican moderates (almost all of them Yankees, by either geography or cultural background) and the meritocratic order they represented to total extinction within the GOP. A decade later, the Tea Party became the voice of the unleashed id of the old Southern order, bringing it forward into the 21st century with its full measure of selfishness, racism, superstition, and brutality intact.


To sum up how this plays out in politics and governing, I cede to source for It's Even Worse Than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Basic Books, 201


The authors identify two sources of dysfunction: 1) The parties are now so polarized and “vehemently adversarial” as to resemble parliamentary parties. In a parliamentary system there are stridently adversarial voices but the majority is not inhibited from enacting its agenda. But in a constitutional system such as ours, with its separation of powers, the majority is limited. This implies that effective government rests on negotiation and compromise. But parliamentary-style polarization has meant that majority power is now limited in a manner exceeding that envsioned by our founders thanks to uncompromising partisans willing to play politics. There is a serious mismatch between our constitutional form and its present parliamentary-style content.

2) The Republican party is “an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited and social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise,unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Our problem is polarization but not just any polarization—asymmertric polarization. Republicans are more partisan than Democrats.

Norman Ornstein is with the conservative American Enterprise Institute

IMO, there is nothing wrong with labels, as long as we understand that there is a continuum for each label and, it is like Spira said in prior posts about families, and Ace said what most of us could say about ourselves, we all have our labels on parts of us. I think, though, what we now have to understand is what was presented in my first source, what do certain words mean to certain people. And, we have to understand why there has been the refusal to compromise and why govt really is not working as it did since the founding. (2cd source)

Doing away with labels is that reaction to our broken system. The problem is not the labels. The basic problem is in the refusal to compromise on what we can agree on, based on the asymmetrical polarization.

I leave here with a couple thoughts... There was a lot of infighting and disagreements among the radical Left of the 1960s-70s (haha they were the ones to throw "political correctness" at a fellow leftie for starting to get to full of his/herself). Disagreements happen!

Who used the phrase "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit." Ronald Reagan or Bernie Sanders?.....both! RR 1984 RR-Mondale debate, Sanders 11/2012

So, yes, apparently Progressives and conservatives can find agreement... well, not with reactionary cons.... oh, and once again, RR was no Progressive Liberal... or Socialist .... but he was a pragmatic conservative who could agree with a Progressive... or Socialist... because RR and Bernie are both Patriots.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm sorry Buzzy - I owe you a better reply to this


Do I feel the need to go bomb other people? No.
I think WAR should end, and the US should mind its own bam dizness until its own ducks are in a row.
Would it be 'progressive' to stop wars?

Or, shall we just keep sending adolescents to brain-wiping-reeducation camps (boot) and send them over to ..................

jesus. This planet is pitiful.

Some would criticize you for your criticism. It's a form of political correctness and coercion. Questioning your love for your country because you wish it was better than it is

There really is no alternative but to take it on the chin and carry on - same as always



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

It's hard to argue with 100 years of Progressive failures isn't it.

Devastating Social/Economic failures since the 1930s.

Federal Reserve/IRS failures -- 100 years and counting.

And that's just the U.S.




posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: desert


IMO, there is nothing wrong with labels, as long as we understand that there is a continuum for each label and, it is like Spira said in prior posts about families, and Ace said what most of us could say about ourselves, we all have our labels on parts of us. I think, though, what we now have to understand is what was presented in my first source, what do certain words mean to certain people. And, we have to understand why there has been the refusal to compromise and why govt really is not working as it did since the founding.


Was a good read desert. Labels are natural seems to me - identifying with a group is only human. We tend to want to get along more than we want to fight - usually. It's an authoritarian personality that decides for others where their love lies, their loyalty - and whether or not that is legitimate and has value. I've always suspected that people who are the most afraid are the ones that can't allow for dissent or criticism. They see it as a threat and treat it as a threat


I leave here with a couple thoughts... There was a lot of infighting and disagreements among the radical Left of the 1960s-70s (haha they were the ones to throw "political correctness" at a fellow leftie for starting to get to full of his/herself). Disagreements happen!


Progressives/liberals/left leaners see problems - and they make waves. They also fight with each other - a lot :-)

This is one of the things I like most about this crew - the bickering. All towards a better future. If it's imperfect - I just have to wonder - what's the alternative? Rigidity and stagnation?

I think we need all kinds - ultimately. Pity not everyone sees it that way


edit on 1/9/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: variety...



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Awww - xuenchen - not getting enough attention in the other thread?

You know what? This thread is about whether or not progressives can be considered patriots. The reason it's even a question is because the answer is no - for so many

I know you consider anything left of you as a problem. I'm tired of trying to talk to the right - because you won't talk

Go ahead - prove me wrong



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

They *ARE* patriots.

They fully support all the failures that money can buy.




posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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.


The gov makes nothing. If the gov gives anyone food, then the gov took that food from someone else.

If the gov gives a person health care, then it took money from some one else to pay for it.

The fed gov is not authorized to take money for anything not specifically stated in the Constitution, because when gov can take to do "good" it will eventually take for power alone, after the taking becomes normal.

A state or local government can do what it wants to, but the Federal Governmnt is only tasked to deal with other countries, and help to settle disputes between states. Most, if not all, federal programs since the War Between the States are unconstitutional.



edit on 9-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well - I guess not

I've never really you seen you do anything but right wing shtick

Was seriously hoping for more



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: desert



While they've [the North AKA Yankees] done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education ...


Their fair share of damage includes:

The War Between the States
The First World War
Soviet Russia
Fascism
The Great Depression
The Second World War
The Cold War
The Bankster Bailout

and of course free mandatory Yankee education with Yankee mass media.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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

No one wants to go to war with the country, they want to go to war with those who hate our country so much that they demand it be changed from the morals and values that built her into something the world admired. We want her to be great again. That is love...that is patriotic.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

This is awesome. Thank you so much for posting it.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

We stand against militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, and the disenfranchisement of the citizenry.


This is from the second extext in the OP.

It is from the Progressive mission.
I didn't make it bold at the beginning.
Perhaps some have missed it.


That is Progressivism. Making small differences, one at a time.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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

No one wants to go to war with the country, they want to go to war with those who hate our country so much that they demand it be changed from the morals and values that built her into something the world admired. We want her to be great again. That is love...that is patriotic.

Here's what you said:


I have never said that I hate her or wish to leave her.

There are plenty of "patriots" who say they hate the federal government & its agencies, like the IRS, the Department of Education, the EPA, and more. And there's an entire secessionist movement of "patriots" who want to leave the country. Going by your own post, those people aren't patriots.

Also, that's a flat out lie when you said "No one wants to go to war with the country". That's a straight up lie. Whether you like it or not, the federal government represents our country. Armed combat against US government officials, US law enforcement, and US agencies is an act of war. So when these false "patriots" spend all of their time preparing for armed combat against the US government, they are literally preparing for war. LOL Like I'm supposed to ignore my eyes, their own websites, and their own released statements about being willing to kill or die if confronted; and instead believe some anonymous poster on an anonymous forum.

If you really want to change and clean up the country, get involved by running for office, become a lobbyist, vote for 3rd party candidates, join committees & other organizations that work with community leaders, join trade groups, etc. That's how you change a system through "love". Preparing to kill members of that system in order to force them to adopt your stances is "terrorism", not "love".

Here's how it would go if I use your earlier comparison of the country being a husband or wife. If you really love your significant other, you help them overcome their weaknesses while listening to their advice to overcome your own weaknesses. You work together so you can both be successful. But you do not constantly threaten to divorce them if you don't get your way; and you certainly don't stockpile weapons & train yourself in case you decide that the only to way to "help" them is to attack & kill them. That isn't love at all.

(Note: Typing that analogy made me realize that maybe that explains the high murder rates for women in abusive relationships and/or the women killed by former love interests. That's some really sick crap. I mean seriously, is that the mindset some of you have? You "love" something so much you'd rather kill it than compromise? That's horrendous. That's literally no different than those monsters who do "honor killings".)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


Here's how it would go if I use your earlier comparison of the country being a husband or wife. If you really love your significant other, you help them overcome their weaknesses while listening to their advice to overcome your own weaknesses. You work together so you can both be successful. But you do not constantly threaten to divorce them if you don't get your way; and you certainly don't stockpile weapons & train yourself in case you decide that the only to way to "help" them is to attack & kill them. That isn't love at all.


Yep!

"If I can't have her, NO ONE WILL!!"


That's some really sick crap.

Indeed. It is.

Preposterous behavior a la a wild animal who's been cornered.

.....


edit on 1/10/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join