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

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No, did you read what I said? Equal treatment under the law meaning the same law is applied to same to you as it is to me. That's what I want.

But in order to for the equal outcome many progressives desire, laws have to be made that do not apply the same to you as to me in order to level us off so that I don't wind up with more or less than you. That means there is NO equal treatment under the law. No equality and no justice.

Like the laws that allow people to vote, get married, testify in court, or serve on a jury? Because laws had to be made to force that equal treatment just in the last 50 years. And why? Because there was no equal treatment under the law before that. Those are the "equal treatment" laws progressives push for.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Exactly why I haven't responded to him/her. How can you reason with that?

EDIT to clarify: To clarify, I was referring to "reasoning with" the post you quoted, not to your post.

With grammar, logic and rhetoric like everyone else. Or you could speak about them indirectly while still within earshot like they do on playgrounds.

I didn't say "how can you respond to that"; I said "how can you reason with that". There's a difference between responding to someone and reasoning with someone. I don't like to waste my time with people when I know there's literally no chance that either of us will change or grow from the discussion. I might as well go to a PEGIDA rally and try to reason with them about the virtues of Islam. It would also be a waste of time.

I was going to leave but had to say one last thing.

You, as evidenced by your necklace and your tag lines below, believe that an invisible SKY FAIRY, came to Muhammad, in a CAVE one night....a lonely desert dwelling illiterate...and gave him magical "LAWS" and instructions...to counter all argument and logic...and claim to be the only 'true religion'...while it's figure head and his "Companions" slaughtered their way through the world and 'married' orphans and concubines at young ages....and demand "SUBMISSION"...literally 5 times a day....to be a good 'servant'

AND I'M the one....that cannot 'be reasoned with'?

That is....EFFING...CLASSIC...

BTW...Islam is not "Liberal" or "Progressive"...it's the antithesis.

Good night

a reply to: enlightenedservant

One of the best things about life is having the opportunity to learn from our mistakes. It makes us better people in the long run.

Absolutely

:-)

Progressives come in a lot of different flavors. That's true of any label. But, I gotta say - I am seriously loving this thread. It's reaffirmed something for me that I didn't really doubt - but it's still nice to see

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

To prove you can be reasoned with, you start baiting me because of my religion? Yeah, goodnight dude.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

To prove you can be reasoned with, you start baiting me because of my religion? Yeah, goodnight dude.

Proof is in the pudding, as they say.

"Progressive"

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

1) I could go on and on for HOURS citing every aspect of 'policy' that Progressives uphold and how they are not rational, logical, or in the interest of our country/world.

Numbered even...

HOURS? Please do

2) Yes Dorothy, we aren't in Kansas. REALITY...on PAPER...doesn't CARE....about your FEELINGS or EMOTIONS...(Caps)

Liberal ideology is largely based on EMOTION (caps) and ignores massive amounts DATA (caps again) to come to many of it's "Political" conclusions.

(Caps caps caps)

Well, there's just no use in pretending anymore:

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

How about the Right Wing trying to keep certain groups of people from having Equal Application of the Law? Gay rights? That was not just a religious resistance, that was political.

How about abortion rights in which the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the constitutional right to her own body? That was beyond religion. That was political.

They may talk about being champions of the Constitution, but it's just talk.

If you actually READ my previous points, I argued that those TWO policies specifically are the only ones I can tell that are LOGICAL and sensible from the "LEFT" of this world/nation.

And the ones I happen to support. But those are very Libertarian stances (arguably).

All else in the Liberal realm is FAILURE....IMO

Those were my examples of how the Right contradicts the constitution. Am I required to provide different examples than what you already stated?

While you did lay-out initial ground rules for my response, no emotions..etc, you did not say that I could not use examples that you and I could agree upon.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Can you be a crossdresser and still like women? Labels of any kind are kind of silly. Why paint yourself into a corner when there are so many different aspects of life to deal with?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Can a progressive truly love their country if they want to change the social structure?
I understand they want to make the country better in their own way.
That's where the divide comes in, and we all have an opinion of what's the best way.

That is my best explanation/opinion.

Thank you for your answer.
Sorry for the delayed feedback. You make an excellent point.

a reply to: baglady333

Can you be a crossdresser and still like women?

LOL!!!!
Yep.
Eddie Izzard........

"Most transvestites fancy women."

"Male tomboy."


First 40 seconds say it all....poor quality, but the point gets across.......(go ahead and watch/listen to the whole clip, if you have the time and interest).

Executive Transvestite........

Baglady333 quoted:

"Can you be a crossdresser and still like women?"



Is this a request?

a reply to: baglady333

Can you be a crossdresser and still like women?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Your thread deserves better than it's gotten

Labels can be pretty limiting and hilarious. I'm almost tempted to post more Monty Python - but I won't

I'm pretty obviously progressive - but I have a conservative streak. I'm pretty sure that most people are a mix - depending on the situation, or their changing life experiences

I have family that's definitely conservative - and yet we're more the same than different. On some things I end up being more conservative than them and in some areas they're more progressive than I am - there's no point (seems to me) in trying to box ourselves in like this

I love my country - very much, but I'm no nationalist. I see us as one country in a community of countries. I get that not everyone feels like that

Anyhow...love for your country is natural. What's not natural is trying to tell other people that they don't truly love their country or have a right to criticize it

I hear one side constantly telling the other they're nothing but wrong while the other is usually saying (to some extent) that we're all wrong and need to try harder

:-)

Just sayin'

I hate the word patriot. I shouldn't, but I kinda do

a reply to: Spiramirabilis



Well if its any consolation, breaking character, I liked the clip. Trailed off for me at about 4:30, but funny nonetheless.

a reply to: Deaf Alien


Tried to find picture on line to post, none of them looked cruddy enuff got sickalookin so I just...quit. Yoursll have to stand for now.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hah!
And I thought US-Conservatives don't like Burkes early reflections, especially since he underlines the importance of a constant and coherent changing and adapting ('progressing') constitution.
I always thought US-Conservatives reject this significant part of Burkes manifestos.

*I realize semantics are even more difficult to overcome across lingual barriers.
**I also realize this is off topic, but it got me excited...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

On topic:

Isn't this a moot question anyways?
If there were any patriots (progressive or other) - there would be no NDAA, no "Patriot"-Act, no wars without declaration (unlawful and based on false pretext), and no disregard for national sovereignty elsewhere.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

My friend, you just keep on keepin' on.

Don't let folds weigh you down with their attempts, notice I said attempts, to ridicule that which they don't understand.

Faith.

Depends what you mean by patriot. The actual definition is someone who is loyal to their country. According to the red coats the founder were rebels but they called themselves patriots. Seems a bit of an arbitrary label that doesn't really serve any useful purpose. Its really meaningless in my opinion because it doesn't describe a certain philosophy, just defines you as a zealot.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think its bad for all of us to define ourselves within a narrow ideology. I used to think of myself as "progressive" because I am pro environment and pro labor, but then I realized that I embrace both conservative and progressive ideas. I believe in the second ammendment and dont believe we should have such a social safety net as it allows people to behave irresponsibly.As a society, we should embrace the good ideas, and both sides have them. Both left and right also have some ludicrous ideas, and that is what is counterproductive, because when one side or the other becomes a majority, they start to buy into ALL their ideas being good, including the bad ones. Historically, when a society goes too far to the left or the right, it always has disastrous results on the populace. We need to have a balance. The founders knew this, and did the best they could to incorporate checks and balances into the system. We need to get that working again. In answer to your question, yes I believe a progressive can be a patriot. And so can a conservative. No one is excluded if they love the country and the rule of law.

a reply to: openminded2011

The founders knew this, and did the best they could to incorporate checks and balances into the system. We need to get that working again.

Yes, they did. It would be wonderful if it really worked, but it seems it has been a huge cause of conflict since, well, 1776. I'm not sure people in politics really want to compromise, or find a 'middle ground' anymore.

We also have to remember that when the country was first established, only rich, white, educated men could vote. The rest of the populace were disallowed (and for the most part not equipped). Things are so much different now that it's not hardly comparable at all.

Thank you very much for your post.