Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
jeb stuart

Jesup, GA

#5117 Mar 25, 2013
Progressives wrote:
All of the above posts pretty much describes the progressives of today.
I am beginning to understand,except for one thing.if the founders really did believe that all men were created equal,then how did they manage to explain and condone slavery?

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5118 Mar 25, 2013
Progressives wrote:
All of the above posts pretty much describes the progressives of today.
Thank you for taking the time to post the info. about progressives. Now we all know what we are dealing with.
Pictures

Fitzgerald, GA

#5119 Mar 25, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
@Progressives
That was an incredible dissertation on the contrast of our Founders' views on the individual and the relationship to government with that of the Progressive view. If that is from a book, please share the title. If that was your own creation: Bravo - I am in awe,
copied from this link.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5120 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>I am beginning to understand,except for one thing.if the founders really did believe that all men were created equal,then how did they manage to explain and condone slavery?
My understanding is that the issue of slavery was a HUGE problem for the founders. There were many who wanted slavery addressed and banned from the new nation about to be born. But they realized they would never keep the support of those colonies whose economic foundation was heavily dependent on slavery. A compromise had to be reached that did not address slavery in order to keep the southern colonies. The infamous part of the constitution that counted slaves as only 3/5's of a person was not a reflection on the value of the slave as an individual, it was another compromise to keep the southern slave holding colonies from having an uneven over representation in Congress through the counting of the slaves (who obviously could not vote) in the population that would determine the number of representatives the states would have. The founders were trying to keep the southern states from having such a disproportionate number of representatives that slavery could never be abolished by Congress. The Founders who wanted slavery ended were willing to play the long game and realized that first they had to create this nation, the abolition of slavery would have to wait.
I believe that is mostly accurate - I stand to be corrected.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5121 Mar 25, 2013
Pictures wrote:
<quoted text>
copied from this link.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007...
Thank you.
domino

Hull, GA

#5122 Mar 25, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are TRYING to converse with a low information voter. It's frustrating, huh? He's uninformed just like the rest of his ilk.
Even though I totally agree with all that you and Aggie say, I usually only read and not post. I have strong beliefs about politics, religion,abortions and same-sex marriage. but I will keep those to myself. However, being from an all military family, I do not like anyone playing on words and thinking they know it all. I personally love the military and we were all George Bush fans. if some of these people knew what my family knows, they too would like George Bush. Wish I could elaborate, but I can't.
jeb stuart

Jesup, GA

#5123 Mar 25, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
My understanding is that the issue of slavery was a HUGE problem for the founders. There were many who wanted slavery addressed and banned from the new nation about to be born. But they realized they would never keep the support of those colonies whose economic foundation was heavily dependent on slavery. A compromise had to be reached that did not address slavery in order to keep the southern colonies. The infamous part of the constitution that counted slaves as only 3/5's of a person was not a reflection on the value of the slave as an individual, it was another compromise to keep the southern slave holding colonies from having an uneven over representation in Congress through the counting of the slaves (who obviously could not vote) in the population that would determine the number of representatives the states would have. The founders were trying to keep the southern states from having such a disproportionate number of representatives that slavery could never be abolished by Congress. The Founders who wanted slavery ended were willing to play the long game and realized that first they had to create this nation, the abolition of slavery would have to wait.
I believe that is mostly accurate - I stand to be corrected.
not trying to correct you,aggie.but you do seem to admit that it may not have been a perfect union from the get-go.btw,i am not a progressive,or at least I don't think I am,if all the above info is correct.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5124 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>not trying to correct you,aggie.but you do seem to admit that it may not have been a perfect union from the get-go.btw,i am not a progressive,or at least I don't think I am,if all the above info is correct.
Ah, but the Founders didn't claim a "perfect union", nearly a "MORE perfect union".(emphasis mine)
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#5125 Mar 25, 2013
Progressives wrote:
The Progressives' Rejection of consent and Compact as the Basis of Society

In accordance with their conviction that all human beings are by nature free, the Founders taught that political society is "formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good" (Massachusetts Constitution of 1780).

For the Founders, the consent principle extended beyond the founding of society into its ordinary operation. Government was to be conducted under laws, and laws were to be made by locally elected officials, accountable through frequent elections to those who chose them. The people would be directly involved in governing through their participation in juries selected by lot.

The Progressives treated the social compact idea with scorn. Charles Merriam, a leading Progressive political scientist, wrote:

The individualistic ideas of the "natural right" school of political theory, indorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiatedÂ…. The origin of the state is regarded, not as the result of a deliberate agreement among men, but as the result of historical development, instinctive rather than conscious; and rights are considered to have their source not in nature, but in law.

For the Progressives, then, it was of no great importance whether or not government begins in consent as long as it serves its proper end of remolding man in such a way as to bring out his real capacities and aspirations. As Merriam wrote, "it was the idea of the state that supplanted the social contract as the ground of political right." Democracy and consent are not absolutely rejected by the Progressives, but their importance is greatly diminished, as we will see when we come to the Progressive conception of governmental structure.
Almost nothing asserted in the post above is at all accurate.

This is a classic example of a "Straw Man" argument.

That's where you create an opponent, unfairly and inaccurately imbue in that opponent all sorts of evil traits, then attack the Straw Man claiming he has all those evil traits.

Can't wait to see documentation supporting all those inaccurate assertions about Progressives.

But, don't hold your breath - since none of it's true - that documentation just ain't gonna show.
jeb stuart

Jesup, GA

#5126 Mar 25, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but the Founders didn't claim a "perfect union", nearly a "MORE perfect union".(emphasis mine)
ah, but wouldn't 'more perfect' imply that they were trying to improve(or progress)?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5127 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>not trying to correct you,aggie.but you do seem to admit that it may not have been a perfect union from the get-go.btw,i am not a progressive,or at least I don't think I am,if all the above info is correct.
The problem with the Progessive agenda (in my opinion) is that on paper, it can sound very good and reasonable.(I am talking about how current Progressives describe it, not as explained so well in the posts quoting the Heritage article.) How do you argue with helping people in need, how do you argue that everyone should have a house of their own (the housing crisis was a consequence of Democrat policies regardless of how people try to blame it on Bush), everyone should have a gold standard health plan, everyone should have free child care, everyone should have a college education - people should have all of these things - whether OR NOT they can afford it. Sure, in a perfect world, all the above would be great. But this isn't a perfect world, it is a world that follows certain undeniable realities. All of the above items cost money and if the individuals can't afford it, but our government is going to give it to them, SOMEONE must pay for it. And the current system is unsustainable. When 35% of the population receives some form of means tested government aid, as opposed to the 47% that receives a government check of any kind, our economy is in danger. I am a big proponent of "charity begins at home" in the thought that local communities are in a much better situation to help their neighbors. For being a small city, Cartersville has an amazing number of local organizations to help those in need and with much more efficiency than any government program.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5128 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>ah, but wouldn't 'more perfect' imply that they were trying to improve(or progress)?
My contention would be that they did. If you are basing this solely on how long it took to finally abolish slavery, I would have to agree that it took far too long.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5129 Mar 25, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost nothing asserted in the post above is at all accurate.
This is a classic example of a "Straw Man" argument.
That's where you create an opponent, unfairly and inaccurately imbue in that opponent all sorts of evil traits, then attack the Straw Man claiming he has all those evil traits.
Can't wait to see documentation supporting all those inaccurate assertions about Progressives.
But, don't hold your breath - since none of it's true - that documentation just ain't gonna show.
This is rather funny. You proffer Straw Man arguments often with your rabid attacks on Republicans/Bush/Cheney and the motivations you consistently label them with.

Please point out some of the inaccuracies in the "Progressives" posts, you don't have to list them all, since you claim they are so numerous - sounds like you could easily give us a dozen.

“Registered Conservative”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#5130 Mar 25, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with the Progessive agenda (in my opinion) is that on paper, it can sound very good and reasonable.(I am talking about how current Progressives describe it, not as explained so well in the posts quoting the Heritage article.) How do you argue with helping people in need, how do you argue that everyone should have a house of their own (the housing crisis was a consequence of Democrat policies regardless of how people try to blame it on Bush), everyone should have a gold standard health plan, everyone should have free child care, everyone should have a college education - people should have all of these things - whether OR NOT they can afford it. Sure, in a perfect world, all the above would be great. But this isn't a perfect world, it is a world that follows certain undeniable realities. All of the above items cost money and if the individuals can't afford it, but our government is going to give it to them, SOMEONE must pay for it. And the current system is unsustainable. When 35% of the population receives some form of means tested government aid, as opposed to the 47% that receives a government check of any kind, our economy is in danger. I am a big proponent of "charity begins at home" in the thought that local communities are in a much better situation to help their neighbors. For being a small city, Cartersville has an amazing number of local organizations to help those in need and with much more efficiency than any government program.
The problem with the LWLD's, and government in general, is that they do not want to draw the distinction between "assistance" and "entitled".

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#5131 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>wow! does this mean that a the magazine "progressive farmer"(which really came into prominence in the 1930's-altho it was first published in the 1880's)was really a communist-inspired magazine?
Probably not, but trying to down play the facts and trying to belittle me are not changing a thing. So are you a Progressive?
Glorya

Fayetteville, GA

#5132 Mar 25, 2013
The hawk is flying. We will not tolerate any post which threaten and degrade women. We still have a voice in America and we'll be sure to use it. Each & every time.
Glorya

Fayetteville, GA

#5133 Mar 25, 2013
posts^
jeb stuart

Jesup, GA

#5134 Mar 25, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with the Progessive agenda (in my opinion) is that on paper, it can sound very good and reasonable.(I am talking about how current Progressives describe it, not as explained so well in the posts quoting the Heritage article.) How do you argue with helping people in need, how do you argue that everyone should have a house of their own (the housing crisis was a consequence of Democrat policies regardless of how people try to blame it on Bush), everyone should have a gold standard health plan, everyone should have free child care, everyone should have a college education - people should have all of these things - whether OR NOT they can afford it. Sure, in a perfect world, all the above would be great. But this isn't a perfect world, it is a world that follows certain undeniable realities. All of the above items cost money and if the individuals can't afford it, but our government is going to give it to them, SOMEONE must pay for it. And the current system is unsustainable. When 35% of the population receives some form of means tested government aid, as opposed to the 47% that receives a government check of any kind, our economy is in danger. I am a big proponent of "charity begins at home" in the thought that local communities are in a much better situation to help their neighbors. For being a small city, Cartersville has an amazing number of local organizations to help those in need and with much more efficiency than any government program.
i'd not dare to argue with you about that.but wars cost a bunch of money,too.and not nearly as many people seem to worry about that.btw,whwre did you get your info about Cyprus? I had to go to the ny times to even read about it(I don't like watchin' either fox or cnn.they are a country of about one million-do you really think that are really relevant to our current situation?

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#5135 Mar 25, 2013
Progressives wrote:
All of the above posts pretty much describes the progressives of today.
It took me forever to read it as it was pretty windy, more like a first chapter in a book. But well said and hit the nail on the head. A good history lesson for those of us that care. Thanks.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#5136 Mar 25, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost nothing asserted in the post above is at all accurate.
This is a classic example of a "Straw Man" argument.
That's where you create an opponent, unfairly and inaccurately imbue in that opponent all sorts of evil traits, then attack the Straw Man claiming he has all those evil traits.
Can't wait to see documentation supporting all those inaccurate assertions about Progressives.
But, don't hold your breath - since none of it's true - that documentation just ain't gonna show.
A statement that I pretty much expected from you. Whats the
matter with you, can't stand the light of day? Progressives always hate the truth and do anything they can to distort it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Darien Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News N.B Power targets Saturday for full restoration... (Dec '13) Mon thenox 2
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Mon Treyleon71 41
cornerstone christian correspondence school dip... (Apr '10) Sun Sue 303
News Chamber honors YALL graduates Jun 22 Anonymous 1
where can we catch shrimp in Darien with a thro... Jun 18 mac 8
Jeannie Stamey (Jul '15) Jun 16 Farrell Landon 4
News Former members allege church is a cult Jun 15 Beautiful 2

Darien Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Darien Mortgages