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: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

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.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha




If you fall into that "patriot" category, I want you to understand that I hold that iconic image of it in no less regard than I hold my own desired image of it; I would just like to see it be more inclusive to the rest of America (women, minorities, non-weapons, science, secularism, etc).


I understand. I personally don't see how it isn't. Any man, woman, minority can be a patriot. If I had to guess, patriotism in the sense you're speaking of is a caricature made by the opposition. That's what I mistakenly thought you were doing.
edit on 5-1-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
To me...

If the enemy pulls up on our shore.

If I look beside me you would be right there, have my back, cause I got yours.

Everything else is just talk...



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere


To me...

If the enemy pulls up on our shore.

If I look beside me you would be right there, have my back, cause I got yours.

I'd be there.

Got your back to the best of my ability.
Who is "the enemy"?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




here is what enlightenedservant said:

trying to improve the laws and institutions we already have here


Trying to improve the laws and institutions that already exist is not "conservatism."

"IMPROVE" being the word you may have missed.




Well this just comes across as a slap in the face.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: breakingbs

Well this just comes across as a slap in the face.


What? How?

Why???



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Trying to improve the laws and institutions that already exist is not "conservatism."


"Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation, and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improvement. It leaves acquisition free; but it secures what it acquires. Whatever advantages are obtained by a state proceeding on these maxims are locked fast as in a sort of family settlement, grasped as in a kind of mortmain forever. By a constitutional policy working after the pattern of Nature, we receive, we hold, we transmit our government and our privileges, in the same manner in which we enjoy and transmit our property and our lives. The institutions of policy, the goods of fortune, the gifts of Providence, are handed down to us, and from us, in the same course and order. Our political system is placed in a just correspondence and symmetry with the order of the world, and with the mode of existence decreed to a permanent body composed of transitory parts,—wherein, by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom, moulding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole, at one time, is never old or middle-aged or young, but, in a condition of unchangeable constancy, moves on through the varied tenor of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus, by preserving the method of Nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never wholly new, in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete."

- Edmund Burke (The father of conservatism)

Only incremental reform has worked throughout the history of the world. Look at any progressive change throughout the history of the world. What "improvements" have there been?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


We have no choice but to move forward. There is no going back to the past.

Total agreement with you!

So - progress......

EDIT:
Oh, wait.

You added some stuff........

Thus, by preserving the method of Nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never wholly new, in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete.

What is the "method of Nature" in the conduct of the state?

Are you talking about "survival of the fittest" (the 'richest')? Have you ever read The Republic (Plato)?

edit on 1/5/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: whyamIhere


To me...

If the enemy pulls up on our shore.

If I look beside me you would be right there, have my back, cause I got yours.

I'd be there.

Got your back to the best of my ability.
Who is "the enemy"?


The enemy is anyone who would attack our shores.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere


The enemy is anyone who would attack our shores.


Agreed.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
No, Buzzy. A progressive cannot be a "patriot" because the modern definition of the term requires a belief in a specific political ideology that contradicts progressivism and you must feel very strongly about other issues as well, such as the 2nd. You must also be prone to believing conspiracies in which the government is going to come for you at any moment.

If we were talking about the traditional sense of the term, I would say yes, but "patriot" has been hijacked and now indicates a specific group of people.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: whyamIhere


To me...

If the enemy pulls up on our shore.

If I look beside me you would be right there, have my back, cause I got yours.

I'd be there.

Got your back to the best of my ability.
Who is "the enemy"?


The enemy is anyone who would attack our shores.



The enemy can be anyone that worships tyranny, control, and secrecy. Ring a bell?


edit on 5-1-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


If we were talking about the traditional sense of the term, I would say yes, but "patriot" has been hijacked and now indicates a specific group of people.

Yeah.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm so disappointed in my country much of the time that I can barely articulate my misery

I'm definitely not in the no matter what she does, right or wrong...category

Does this make me a patriot?

:-)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
This response will likely be tl;dr for most, but it is necessary for me to fully answer your question.

I think the answer is both yes and no. I don't feel that I fit completely in either category. But I possess certain characteristics of both.

If I can step out of the bounds of your definition of patriot and quote this from your passage:


correct constitutionally constructionist context
Generally constitutional constructionism implies, to me, a certain belief in the sanctity of the original words of the founding fathers. While I understand the notion that the framers of the constitution were forward thinkers, the words that they recorded in the founding documents are not magical.

For instance

that all men are created equal
is a throwback to the paternalism of the 18th century, we have "progressed" beyond that notion. We now acknowledge that, in essence, all sentient beings are created equally. For any man that believes differently I suggest that you tell your SO she is not your equal. Your notion of "constitutional constructionism" will be corrected post haste.

Now as for the definition of progressive, the following terms are used:
champions peace = Clearly peace is the preferable path, but peace is not always possible.

social justice = I can find no reason that all people should not be treated equally, regardless of their social or cultural standing.

economic justice = Everyone should have equal opportunity for economic advancement. However, if the government tries to enforce some notion of economic equality, then I believe the system will utterly fail. There has to be some incentive for the individual to climb the economic ladder by contributing to society. True capitalism is one way of achieving this goal, crony capitalism is NOT.

civil rights = See social justice.

civil liberties = I believe every individual should have the ability to make their own choices, good or bad. As long as those choices don't interfere with the absolute rights of another individual to pursue the same.

human rights = See social justice and civil liberties.

a preserved environment = Within reason this is a laudable goal. But we must recognize that mankind is an invasive species. In nature, invasive species sometime overwhelm the resident organisms and alter the environment. On one hand, it makes no sense to poison the environment on which we ourselves depend. Fracking waste water released into the environment, or injected under high pressure into underground wells, destroys the very environment in which we ourselves need to survive. On the other hand, a sub-sub-species of turtle should not be allowed to shutdown a billion dollar infrastructure project. Pick them up, put them in a box, and move them to the other side of the street.

a reinvigorated democracy. = This thing that currently passes for democracy, or a representational republic, is far from it. In fact our governmental structure is so far from what the founding fathers intended, that I believe the whole thing has to be scrapped and started from scratch. It is irreparably broken.

nonviolence = If at all possible violence should be eschewed. However, we live in a violent world. Mankind is a violent animal. So there are times when violence needs to be employed to ensure the greater good of the collective organism. But, when it appears necessary that the time has come to employ violence, the action should be vigorously debated to avoid problems like the ones that have arisen in recent years.

freedom of speech. = Freedom of speech should be protected. If we lived in a more civil society where we were allowed to say whatever we wanted there would no issue at all. However there are limits to what I feel is protected, at least from a common sense perspective. If one decides to stand in the middle of a crowd of angry Muslim youth and throw bacon at them, I will be the first to nominate you for a Darwin Award.

So, in summary I would say that I believe that I am both a patriot and progressive. But there are common sense limits that have to be applied to the definitions of both. I don't blindly follow the dogma of any specific label.

Just my humble opinion.

-dex



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I so agree with your post! Yes, the word "patriot" was hijacked decades ago, when those who supported actions in Vietnam claimed it for themselves, calling those in opposition "anti-American" and "unpatriotic".

(IMO those who opposed the US action in Southeast Asia should never have allowed such hijacking to take place, but rather shouted back that they were patriots, too. And while I'm at it, nor should those in opposition have burned the flag, but followed what Saul Alinsky said about it, "The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the symbol of America’s hopes and aspirations.")

The word "patriot" after that devolved into a stand-in for blind patriotism and has devolved further into a reactionary, anti-government stance. Those patriots who were against the Vietnam actions questioned authority, no matter from what political side, while today a "patriot" either ignores authority or threatens to topple it, if it is not on "their side".

America was never meant to be so divided as it is today. It is unhealthy for our system of govt, and, unless the word "patriot" is reclaimed, this great nation will come off the rails so completely, derail in such a tragic wreck, that putting it back on track may be impossible. Reclaim Patriotism, and reclaim those symbols of what we stand for.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: breakingbs

Well this just comes across as a slap in the face.


What? How?

Why???


Heh. Okay, if you want to play politics for your "side" and say those that share this vision are the only ones improving things, Im fine with it. Im not REALLY interested in winning arguments. But I refuse to really believe you're that ignorant.

edit on 5-1-2016 by breakingbs because: couldnt find icon



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


I'm so disappointed in my country much of the time that I can barely articulate my misery

I'm definitely not in the no matter what she does, right or wrong...category

Does this make me a patriot?

Forgive me, friend......

who is "she"?? I'm not sure I understand your post beyond the 'misery' part (which I share, you know that)......

If you care about our fellow citizens, and whether or not they have enough nutrition, adequate shelter, clothing, education; then yes, in my estimation, that is Patriotism.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: breakingbs


But I refuse to really believe you're that ignorant.

Ignorant about what?

I lean progressive, yes. I also have no issue with the 1st and 2nd amendments. I am a secular person (as opposed to religious).

What is it I am ignorant about?
(Been reading your posts - gotta say, you don't seem to make very much sense to me.)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Yes...Progressives are Patriots as are Conservatives.

The problem is that the labels we use, politically, don't mean what they used to or what we think they do and they are a means to control us.

I'm more liberal than Conservative, but I'm more pro gun than most conservatives I know. Wow! How is that possible? According to popular belief and our modern labels it is impossible for me to be pro gun and pro LGBT rights. Because our labels just don't mean anything.

The Ideals of feminism and progressiveness and liberalism and conservatism and libertarian ism and patriotism are all great ideals...as is socialism, but we've been programmed to believe what the media tell us.

We're all programmed here on ATS to fall right in with those labels and programmed to hate anyone that disagrees with us.




top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join