Liberals aren’t progressive

I am mystified by the use of the term “secular progressive” to describe liberals. It is clear that “secular” means “disassociated from religious teaching or principles,” but I always thought being “progressive” meant wanting to move ahead with reforms.

To my way of thinking, today’s so-called “progressives” are trying to move backward to emulate pre-revolutionary days when a central authority, King George III, told the colonists what they could and could not do. This is hardly moving ahead.

The last thing we need is reform that results in more centralized control of our lives. Let’s hope the “secular progressives” do not make any progress in our next election.

Steve Bailey
Fairway

Comments

[Engineer]

Pub 17
If there was anything I wouldn't have to Google for it. it would be all over the media. And I have no confusion about dollar values or about their use to give incorrect appearances. For instance, let’s say the national debt is $8 trillion at the end of 2008. Obama is elected and runs the debt to $12 Trillion by the end of 2009. This causes the actual value of the dollar at the end of 2009 to be one half of what it was in 2008. If you then plot the value of the National debt based on 2009 dollars, the plot would make it seem that the value of the debt had been decreased by 25% since 2008 even though the actual dollar amount had been increased by 50%. In other words in the example 8 Trillion 2008 dollars have the same value as 16 Trillion 2009 dollars.

[Pub 17]

OMG we've entered the pages of Alice in Wonderland: "The question is, who will be master, that is all." No, Humpty, you can't use words any way you like. I mean you can, but you can't expect to have any credibility if you do. Unbelieveable.
"They have found nothing and will continue to do so because there is nothing," once again, I'm not here to do your Googling gratis.
This exceeds your previous worst, your confusion about nominal and adjusted dollar values. I think this is about it for me, having already said that once and letting myself waste another thirty minutes I'll never get back.

[Engineer]

Pub 17
The Demos control the committees and have held their "oversight" hearings. They have found nothing and will continue to do so because there is nothing. They are looking for anything they can use to make news. The fact they have found nothing speaks for itself. It there was the smallest hint of wrong doing or even of questionable activity, Harry and Nancy would be holding non-stop news conferences concerning it. As to "progressive" I arrived at my definition by observing their policies and activities. What's your definition?

[Pub 17]

Seriously, Engineer, you're painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner. The statement that the Democrats have had every opportunity for "oversight" is simply a lie. The White House is doing everything it can to get to January '09 without providing subpoenaed witnesses and records, and until the Democrats can send troops into barricaded offices to drag witnesses and records to committee rooms, very little is going to get done. As to your "understanding" of the word "progressive," it's faulty, as are the majority of your "understandings" and "observations."

[Engineer]

Pub 17
You must know that you are just making statements that have no bases. the Demos have had committee control for over 20 months now and have had every opportunity for "oversight". They have had their hearings and tried their best. They have given MLB a hard time concerning steroids but they have not produced a single charge against the Administration. As to the current usage of "progressive" it is my understanding it means those who believe everyone should be taken care of but by someone else's money, not theirs.

[Pub 17]

And, as usual, Rouge got nothin'.

[Rogue]

Pube is frothing at the mouth, lets try this for Pube....Rush Limbaugh is a great American patriot!

[Pub 17]

"To my way of thinking, today’s so-called “progressives” are trying to move backward to emulate pre-revolutionary days when a central authority, King George III, told the colonists what they could and could not do. This is hardly moving ahead."

EXACTLY! King George has established the Imperial Presidency that Dick Nixon only dreamed of. No oversight, no access, hide the e-mails, hide the notes, hide the minutes of the meetings, nobody answers to Congress, sequester EVERYTHING about the decision-making process, and the peasantry can dam' well wait till the Imperial Edicts come down from above.

Impressive historical analogy, Steve. I stand in awe of your scholarship.

Oh--nice to know they're now selling mind-altering drugs at the Fairway Hen House. I'll boogie over this aft and check it out.

[jack]

The diference betweeen Teddy Roosevelt and GW Bush can be explained quite simply.

TR was all in favor of "The Bully Pulpit".

GWB is nothing but a bully if the pulpit.

Such small words have such deep meaning.

[jack]

Whispering: WELL SAID!

Steve: Let me explain. "Progressivism" was a term coined to explain the beliefs of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. "Progressivism" was for the Bully Pulpit and the expansion of U.S. power toward positivly effecting U.S. interests worldwide.

At the same time "progressivism" was for the expansion of the ability to acheive the "American Dream" to all who were lucky enough to be citizens of our great country. TR's "Progressivism" included a belief that monopolies are inherently evil, that a person's value is not determined by the vagina they come from, and that the ability to live a life of positive potential is inherently good and will add to the benefit of all Americans.

Apparently, this is now anathema to "conservatives" and the Republican Party.

[whispering_to_kc]

King George managed to keep a colonial base of support throughout the American Revolution.

The Tories. The Loyalists. Old, conservative, moneyed, white guys stuck by George's side.

All these years later, and not much has changed. Except that today the Tories are trying to rewrite history and claim the Patriots were the ones who sided with the crown.