Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the only proof you need of wide spread discrimination is an under/over representation of certain groups, "equal opportunity" just became meaningless.
Liberals seek to make some more equal than others.
Progressivism wants to expand government; conservatism wants to shrink government...Seems to me like those are the opposite of each other!
You are correct. Progressives reject our founding principles, the ideas of Classical Liberals like John Locke.
Locke influenced Benjamin Franklin greatly, and he incorporated Locke's ideas in the Declaration of Independence; the ideas of inalienable rights and that man is the subject of no one else, but owns himself, being the property of no one but God. These ideas became the very foundation of our American government.
[Now, some of you are sure to bring up the issue of slavery. But slavery already existed in America before our Declaration of Independence, and the Founders knew it was problematic. However, they also knew that in order for the Constitution to be accepted and ratified by all states, they could not do anything about slavery at this time. This is the reason that the slavery issue was not addressed in the beginning.]
Woodrow Wilson, an uber Progressive, actually stated that in order to properly understand the Declaration of Independence, do not read the preface (the part about natural rights).
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 09-20-2014 at 05:49 AM..
Although there may be Republicans who are Progressives, Conservatism is the exact opposite of Progressivism!
I had a good laugh when I read this post. For most of my life, the government here in Ontario has been the PC party. Yes, as strange as it may seem to many Americans who view things as black or white with no shades of grey allowed, the Progressive Conservative Party is a reality. LOL
The PCs have mostly been an excellent government here. They have a broad appeal right across the political spectrum. Although they are progressive in the social aspect of policy they are also very business friendly. Their desire for social reform must not exceed the ability to PAY for those programmes.
In 1995 the PCs won an election and their leader turned the party, hard right. By the time they were done they had pretty much destroyed the PC party and ended their chances of becoming the government for at least a generation. Conservatism without a strong progressive element is the worst possible choice the voters can ever make.
That may be true for Canada. We are not Canada.
I reject any notion that Progressivism must be a necessary element of government. In fact, it is Progressivism that is destroying our American government, because it has trampled on our founding principles, rejecting what the Founders established as "self evident truths."
What kind of "social reform" necessitates abandonment of our foundational principles?
Well, we have legalized the killing of innocent children, babies still in the womb, so I guess we have abandoned the idea of a natural right to life. I do not see that as "social reform." If anything, it is the absolute opposite. But, we do it in the name of "a woman's right to control her own body." Only problem is that there is another body, separate from hers, that is not even considered human! It also ignores any responsibility one has for her own actions.
The right to Life, Liberty, and Property (pursuit of happiness) was the quintessential element of social reform of the Enlightenment era, as articulated by John Locke, who influenced Benjamin Franklin's thinking to such a great extent that he incorporated those ideas in our Declaration of Independence.
The ideas of Progressivism are anathema to the ideas of Liberty, and our Constitution. In fact, the Progressives despise our Constitution, and would sooner get rid of it. This is why they invented the idea of the "Living Constitution," [thanks to Woodrow Wilson] so that they could interpret it any way they choose, to justify any government or judicial decision.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 09-20-2014 at 06:14 AM..
Considering that Ken Burns is very liberal himself, I am NOT surprised.
Very good point!
Ken Burns probably wouldn't then have been who he is in the world of media, and probably would not have been able to create and sell a successful series of films.
Not only wouldn't the conservative version of these story not sell, the liberal media of recent times might not have allowed it.
Very good point!
Ken Burns probably wouldn't then have been who he is in the world of media, and probably would not have been able to create and sell a successful series of films.
Not only wouldn't the conservative version of these story not sell, the liberal media of recent times might not have allowed it.
Do you want to know how I know that you haven't watched the series?
Do you want to know how I know that you haven't watched the series?
I am watching it. I'm not suggesting the whole series presents just a liberal view.
But my point is a conservative Burns most likely would not of traveled his path, and would have had a great deal of difficulty arriving to the point of doing any of these series because of the liberalism in education and the media. From the conservative side there are very few pathways to this sort of result. I think that to be a problem, possibly without a solution.
I am watching it. I'm not suggesting the whole series presents just a liberal view.
But my point is a conservative Burns most likely would not of traveled his path, and would have had a great deal of difficulty arriving to the point of doing any of these series because of the liberalism in education and the media. From the conservative side there are very few pathways to this sort of result. I think that to be a problem, possibly without a solution.
So are you saying that he wouldn't be able to have the same level of objectivity if he were staunchly conservative? I'd think it would be difficult for anyone regardless of political beliefs would have a difficult time doing what Burns does if their politics are front and center. It's not as if you can watch "The National Parks" "Baseball," or "The Civil War" and takeaway that Burns is pushing any sort of agenda.
It would think it highly unusual for someone very conservative that could arrive with a similar result. The level of objectivity could possibly be the same, no doubt with more view from the right, but much harder to arrive at, then package and sell. Because many of the paths to this creative result are heavy with liberal bias and preference.
Baseball, OK as there is little politics there. National Parks maybe.
But The Civil War, no. State's Rights would have played a much more prominent role than slavery in the series.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
