Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

Posted in the Kingsland Forum

Comments (Page 235)

Showing posts 4,681 - 4,700 of47,771
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Progressives

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5113
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Liberal domestic policy follows the same principle. It tends to elevate the "other" to moral superiority over against those whom the Founders would have called the decent and the honorable, the men of wisdom and virtue. The more a person is lacking, the greater is his or her moral claim on society. The deaf, the blind, the disabled, the stupid, the improvident, the ignorant, and even (in a 1984 speech of presidential candidate Walter Mondale) the sad -- those who are lowest are extolled as the sacred other.

Surprisingly, although Progressivism, supplemented by the more recent liberalism, has transformed America in some respects, the Founders' approach to politics is still alive in some areas of American life. One has merely to attend a jury trial over a murder, rape, robbery, or theft in a state court to see the older system of the rule of law at work. Perhaps this is one reason why America seems so conservative to the rest of the Western world. Among ordinary Americans, as opposed to the political, academic, professional, and entertainment elites, there is still a strong attachment to property rights, self-reliance, and heterosexual marriage; a wariness of university-certified "experts"; and an unapologetic willingness to use armed forces in defense of their country.

The first great battle for the American soul was settled in the Civil War. The second battle for America's soul, initiated over a century ago, is still raging. The choice for the Founders' constitutionalism or the Progressive-liberal administrative state is yet to be fully resolved.
Progressives

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5114
Mar 25, 2013
 
All of the above posts pretty much describes the progressives of today.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5115
Mar 25, 2013
 
@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,

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5116
Mar 25, 2013
 
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
+1 well stated.
I've (attempted to) to say pretty much the same thing several times, you said it so much better...
I would definitely dispute the idea that I said it any better than you have on other occasions. It seems so redundant at times, but those of us on the conservative side of the spectrum are forced to repeat facts and indisputable conclusions from time to time to offset the misinformation that is often posted here.

And what an incredible series of posts from Progressives - I cannot wait to share those with my husband when he gets home.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5120
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

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

Jackson, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5122
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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

Savannah, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Cape Coral, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5125
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Savannah, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5126
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5129
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Dallas, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5131
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Mcdonough, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5132
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,681 - 4,700 of47,771
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

12 Users are viewing the Kingsland Forum right now

Search the Kingsland Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Kingsland radio station (Nov '12) 3 hr Jay Moreno 24
Have You Seen Jay Moreno? 20 hr Jay Moreno 2
Residential car lots 22 hr Jay Moreno 33
GA Who do you support for Governor in Georgia in 2... (Oct '10) Fri Mason II 2,039
Hardcases at B&B Custom Hardscapes Thu Rokster 2
Cheap decent place for rent Wed NomadHeart 11
Why all the yard signs Wed Ann 20
•••
•••
•••
•••

Kingsland Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Kingsland People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Kingsland News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Kingsland
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••