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.
Which is why progressives have been the ones fighting for greater rights for blacks, gays, women, and other people who have historically oppressed, while conservatives have fought to reproduce the status quo and the perpetual rule of a white establishment? Come back to earth, look at who voted Democratic, and look at who voted Republican. Who are the conformists, the traditionalists, the rearguard? It's always been the right.
The perpetual rule of the White establishment ?
Read up a bit more on the topic. You're going into the typical D vs R, conservative vs liberal realm.
We're not talking about conservatives. We are talking about what Progressives want.
If you want to talk about what conservatives want, I can sum that up in one word: money.
If you can't infer what progressives want from their opposition to conservatives on those issues, you're not too swift. I'll spell it out. They want all of those groups (women, blacks, gays, etc.) to have equal rights in the eyes of the law, which ties into my above post. Not too hard to understand. Your understanding of conservatism is equally defunct, but I guess that's to be expected. No use going further here.
This is really stupid. Most progressives want people to have the greatest opportunity to achieve whatever it is they want, not for people to all have the exact same thing. This is the same issue time and again, equality of opportunity vs. equality of result. Stop regurgitating the same stereotypical nonsense, especially since you're talking to a progressive right now. I don't need someone with a distorted view of the left telling me what I think.
Yet you want to strap me with your mandates, making it impossible to achiever what I want. Do you see the irony there?
Too many lawyers always results in too many regulations, free-market analogies are a perfect example as they create or burgeon a segment of the economy that goes and does its thing. See the mad 1980's educational choices. Those pigeons have come home to roost along with the coops dedicated to finance and social studiers of anything relating to behavioural 'science'.
Not all regulations remove 'freedom', unless freedom can be described as doing anything anyone damn well feels they should do. Onerous regulation, the type that comes from sweeping socio-political movements tend to feel their ways about a subject to cement ideology or are blatantly grabs at power. So manipulative regulation is the issue, not regulation meant to keep a functioning civic entity well-ordered.
Mandating business and not just citizenry to pay for HC is strange, as wages should keep up so that personal taxation can accomodate the lien for the government service. Demanding businesses directly channel a de facto compensation in this manner indicates that citizens feel they are owed something more, requesting compensation in a rhetorical entitlement is the manifestation; shouldn't a person's pay be enough to sustain the new liens? Why is the amount of wages to an employee above debate but taxes directly on business is not? Convenience?
Yet you want to strap me with your mandates, making it impossible to achiever what I want. Do you see the irony there?
That's not ironic, that's the bind of existing within a society of laws and social structures which attempt to orient laws towards enhancing the greater good. Having to pay taxes so that people can be ensured is a restriction, the crippling cost of healthcare is another restriction, and figuring out how to produce a system that produces equality of opportunity is the end goal. I don't support Obamacare, but you again follow a line of argument whereby any taxation whatsoever is tantamount to bondage, and it's inane.
Alternatively, this is the early 20th c. factory owner complaining against the restrictions against the use of indentured servants as a restriction of his freedoms. Is his right to not have his business practices regulated equal to the right of the servants not be basically used as slave labor? If we're going to follow a path of ridiculousness, please tell me the what kind of regulation is justifiable at all, and what business should NOT be allowed to do.
Grow up. Conservatives fought against the manumission of slaves, the voting rights of women, the civil rights movement, and basically everything else that threatened the mainstream and or fought against the demonization of people considered too "alternative". Just because you think simplicity is the answer doesn't mean you should act simple-minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore
This is really stupid. Most progressives want people to have the greatest opportunity to achieve whatever it is they want, not for people to all have the exact same thing. This is the same issue time and again, equality of opportunity vs. equality of result. Stop regurgitating the same stereotypical nonsense, especially since you're talking to a progressive right now. I don't need someone with a distorted view of the left telling me what I think.
...
If you can't infer what progressives want from their opposition to conservatives on those issues, you're not too swift. I'll spell it out. They want all of those groups (women, blacks, gays, etc.) to have equal rights in the eyes of the law, which ties into my above post. Not too hard to understand. Your understanding of conservatism is equally defunct, but I guess that's to be expected. No use going further here.
Repetition is not going to automatically make what you claim true.
Liberal "progressives" want to smash what they hate & replace it with their own ideas as to what is correct. None of that 'greatest opportunity' glibness means anything other than to manufacture an equitable result. Take 'marriage equality' as an example. If the same rights could be accomplished by legality, why push to assimiliate the rituals of those seen to despise same-sex domesticities? Power. That and a sense that taking something from others that have been deemed oppressive is a cultural victory. Evolution of acceptance has nothing to do with usurping some tradition simply to regulate a social outcome, to 'normalize' people's domestic affairs. When you consider how much 'progressives' claim to hate monotheism, what is the point to subverting their ceremonies via government authority? To be 'equal' or to co-opt the meaning of a thing thru civic regulation of a person's body and choices therin? Alot of these claims regarding 'equal rights' make no sense, especial considerations seem to be the goal and what is the point? To smash out of spite, tolerance a word bandied around to give it an air of righteousness. To do unto them what was done unto you.
If 'progressives' were really what they like to believe they are, they would seek to abolish marriage of any kind as an archaic ritual denoting past enslavement of one gender and the now-unnecessary protection of children's paternity under old community standards.
But then 'progressives' think Affirmitive Action was affirming! Of what? A person's skin color being the only indication an employer should consider under a mandated quota? Protecting an oppressed class must be blind to efficient production so that everyone is fruitful- mediocrity irrelevant? A let-it-be mentality that leads to self-destructive neighbourhoods and a generation that feel protected enough to do nothing or deal dope and desperation? How well some regulatory feel-good guilt trips work when one is 'progressive' but earnestly lip-serving dribble meant to conquer and crush and not provide a single sensible alternative that might create what it is they say they want!
Last edited by TheEternalSanctuaryMan; 11-12-2012 at 04:23 PM..
Repetition is not going to automatically make what you claim true.
Liberal "progressives" want to smash what they hate & replace it with their own ideas as to what is correct. None of that 'greatest opportunity' glibness means anything other than to manufacture an equitable result. Take 'marriage equality' as an example. If the same rights could be accomplished by legality, why push to assimiliate the rituals of those seen to despise same-sex domesticities? Power. That and a sense that taking something from others that have been deemed oppressive is a cultural victory. Evolution of acceptance has nothing to do with usurping some tradition simply to regulate a social outcome, to 'normalize' people's domestic affairs. When you consider how much 'progressives' claim to hate monotheism, what is the point to subverting their ceremonies via government authority? To be 'equal' or to co-opt the meaning of a thing thru civic regulation of a person's body and choices therin? Alot of these claims regarding 'equal rights' make no sense, especial considerations seem to be the goal and what is the point? To smash out of spite, tolerance a word bandied around to give it an air of righteousness. To do unto them what was done unto you.
If 'progressives' were really what they like to believe they are, they would seek to abolish marriage of any kind as an archaic ritual denoting past enslavement of one gender and the now-unnecessary protection of children's paternity under old community standards.
That's a long rant just to insinuate that gay marriage somehow devalues the marriages of heterosexuals.
Marriage is a legally recognized process with specific rights accorded to those who get married, and the only reason for the fight for gay marriage is so that gay couples can enjoy the same benefits under the law that straight couples do.
The fact that you think it is something pursued out of spite speaks only to your own personal insecurities and a sense of persecution.
By your addled logic, any straight progressive fighting for gay marriage secretly hates his own marriage and wants to somehow tarnish it. Give me a break. What'll happen when you discover that there are Christian progressives too? Keep swinging at strawmen.
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.
