The Sinister Liberal Agenda....

Rion · Apr 22, 2013

But material progress isnt their goal. The progressive goal is progress in generating a new version of human nature. That is why progressivism embraces and promotes false distinctions between human beings. Progressivism cannot accept the premise of voluntary commitments between human beings that would imply that the current state of affairs is relatively ideal since it is based mostly on consent. Capitalism means that the rich arent rich because of greed after all, all human beings are greedy. Theyre rich because they engage in more voluntary transactions that help both sides. People are people, and they make agreements. There is no possibility of change in human nature.

But this is anathema to progressives. Instead, progressivism must create enemies, opponents to the beautiful change in human nature that must result if we can only excise the evil in our midst. And so progressivism casts certain Americans as the others, who if curbed or eliminated, can be converted into wonderful human beings as defined by the left.

The Goal of the Progressive Agenda | Brookings Harbor Tea Party

There you go. Calling it liberal is a misnomer.

SolomonVII · Apr 22, 2013

Rion said:
But material progress isnt their goal. The progressive goal is progress in generating a new version of human nature. That is why progressivism embraces and promotes false distinctions between human beings. Progressivism cannot accept the premise of voluntary commitments between human beings that would imply that the current state of affairs is relatively ideal since it is based mostly on consent. Capitalism means that the rich arent rich because of greed after all, all human beings are greedy. Theyre rich because they engage in more voluntary transactions that help both sides. People are people, and they make agreements. There is no possibility of change in human nature.

But this is anathema to progressives. Instead, progressivism must create enemies, opponents to the beautiful change in human nature that must result if we can only excise the evil in our midst. And so progressivism casts certain Americans as the others, who if curbed or eliminated, can be converted into wonderful human beings as defined by the left.

The Goal of the Progressive Agenda | Brookings Harbor Tea Party

There you go. Calling it liberal is a misnomer.

That is a pretty good summary of the kind of forces in today's society that are being fought against from the right hand side of the aisle.

It is such idealism that is at the heart of progressivism after all, that society and human nature can somehow be perfected, from the top by enlightened, benevolent centralized government leadership that alone is poweerful enough to quash the forces of evil that stand in the way between the social animal and the state of perfect being.

revanneosl · Apr 22, 2013

Whoops, my bad.

Liberal =/= Progressive.

SolomonVII · Apr 22, 2013

The OP is specifically asking for what is the progressive agenda that people on the right are talking about. It is the conservative point of view on progressivism that he wants to have explained.

If various liberals do not define themselves in such a way, that is great.
For that means that they have found common cause with conservatives who are fighting against exactly those forces that these various liberals disagree with too.

revanneosl · Apr 22, 2013

Yeah - I can sort of see the value of that. It's just that it's so all-pervasive in certain circles. I'm thinking mainly of radio talk-show hosts who do the whole, "Here's what Liberal believe..." thing, and I'm sitting there thinking, "No. You are an idiot. I don't believe that and I'm as liberal as they come."

Just this weekend I was at a wedding reception and got an earful of "Well, if you voted for Obama than you believe thus-and-so." The guy was truly flummoxed when I said, "No, I don't. And I also don't think that you have the right to define my beliefs for me."

It just had never occurred to him that liberals' beliefs might be other than what his media mentors had taught him to believe they were.

SolomonVII · Apr 22, 2013

Harpuia said:
This is happyfunland compared to where I was at just a month ago. Just sayin'.

There are other boards that allow for a lot more personal attacks. The way that this is set up, there are people that have made a science of constant goading and ridiculing, all the while keeping it under the radar.
The goal is to instigate some kind of retaliation, which then gets reported.

It is kind of a miniature version of Westboro tactics, where the lawyers that run that church goad people into taking swings at them and then sue.
In other more freewheeling boards, the ignore button is not so necessary as it is in this sub-forum in particular.

Thunder Peel · Apr 22, 2013

Harpuia said:
At its core, I always hear one thing in common when referring to the liberal agenda.

Liberals always want to give people "stuff". This "stuff" can be materialistic like welfare or employment or non-materialistic like allowing abortions. From what I understand, since the person is receiving stuff from the liberals, they will always vote for them because the conservatives are trying to take it away from them (or so they're led to think).

With that voter who will always vote for them, they can impose whatever policies they wish and the voter will continue to vote for them because voting for the other side would make them either lose their stuff or have to work for what would come to them for free as long as they just continue to vote liberal, allowing liberals to have a willing authoritarian dictatorship of the people.

If I got that mixed up, it's because I'm trying to take the one thing just about every conservative I know at work has told me in common and tried to mix it together haphazardly.

Many of us feel that way because that's what bigger government aims for. If they can have everyone dependent upon them then they control everything: the people, the economy, the private sector. In my experience I have yet to meet someone who lives on welfare who votes Republican or a friend living on government assistance who wishes to get out of it. They're perfectly content to keep mining the system and allowing taxpayers to carry much of their load for them. I realize not everyone is like that but the overwhelming majority of those I've met behave in that manner. Obama's whole platform was built upon that pillar: "It's not fair that someone else has more than you do. I'm going to even it out." We as a country now punish success and hard work by saying it's unfair and stacked against certain individuals, even though many of those who have so much got there by starting out with nothing. If you live in America you're already on equal turf, regardless of what the left says. It's up to you to decide what you will do with your life.

What irks me about the progressive agenda is their desire to eliminate any kind of risk or loss in life. They want a world where there are no winners or losers, no successes or failures, no right or wrong choices. If you try something then it should succeed, even if it's not a good idea. If you work hard you should be guaranteed a victory, even if someone else works harder. They believe the government can weed out loss and setbacks in society by regulating individual lives and making their choices for them.

The problem is that humans, by nature, enjoy achieving. We love the feeling of working hard and being declared the winner. It feels good to put in an honest day's work and to get paid for it. There's a wonderful feeling of trying something again and again until you have a major breakthrough. There's nothing satisfying about sitting around and letting others carry you through life. Liberals, in their effort to eliminate risk and failure, must punish those who are ahead, hence the redistribution of wealth. They underestimate the individual and their ability to provide for themselves and their family. They act as if we aren't capable of running our own lives and need a big government to tell us what to do. Unfortunately there is a big sector of the population that has bought into this and continues to vote for the party that offers them the easy way out, even at the expense of those of us who want the freedom to succeed or failure on our own terms.

revanneosl · Apr 22, 2013

You see - that right there is the sort of mischaracterization of liberals that I'm talking about.

Thunder Peel · Apr 22, 2013

revanneosl said:
You see - that right there is the sort of mischaracterization of liberals that I'm talking about.

So what do you believe then? I constantly see liberals telling conservatives what they believe and making big generalizations. Most of the liberals I know and am friends with are pushing extremely hard for the very agenda I mentioned above.

GarfieldJL · Apr 22, 2013

WalksWithChrist said:
Here's a counter-book.
What Liberal Media? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al Franken covers the same stuff and is way funnier. I definitely recommend him instead.

So the hurry to pin the blame for terrorist actions on political critics of Obama, just like how they immediately tried to pin the blame on the political critics of Obama for the Gabbie Giffords shootings is a sign of objective journalism... :waaah:

Fact of the matter is that the Conservative Journalists and commentators were not making wild speculations. They were pointing out the similarities in the style of the attack in Boston to terrorists acts overseas, especially after information about the pressure cookers was either released by the FBI or leaked from the FBI. Was everything reported correctly, no, but you have to understand they were getting information from law-enforcement...

At the end of the day, the two terrorists were born overseas, only 1 of the 2 had US Citizenship, and both were Muslim.

There was absolutely no signs that these attacks were connected to the Tea Party, which has absolutely no history of violence, despite the hysteria on the part of the left.

To claim that there isn't a serious left wing bias problem in the media is rather laughable, to say the least.

Harpuia · Apr 22, 2013

Thunder Peel said:
Many of us feel that way because that's what bigger government aims for. If they can have everyone dependent upon them then they control everything: the people, the economy, the private sector. In my experience I have yet to meet someone who lives on welfare who votes Republican or a friend living on government assistance who wishes to get out of it. They're perfectly content to keep mining the system and allowing taxpayers to carry much of their load for them.

I meant that I understand the position. I don't agree with it, well, I don't COMPLETELY agree with it, per se. But I understand the position.

I realize not everyone is like that but the overwhelming majority of those I've met behave in that manner. Obama's whole platform was built upon that pillar: "It's not fair that someone else has more than you do. I'm going to even it out." We as a country now punish success and hard work by saying it's unfair and stacked against certain individuals, even though many of those who have so much got there by starting out with nothing. If you live in America you're already on equal turf, regardless of what the left says. It's up to you to decide what you will do with your life.

Honestly, the overwhelming majority of conservatives I met would love to do a U-Turn and take us into predestination where only their "chosen ones" (people born rich, Fundamentalists, etc.) get to make the rules, and that's not great either. There's a healthy medium where we can get the most efficiency out of the citizens.

What irks me about the progressive agenda is their desire to eliminate any kind of risk or loss in life. They want a world where there are no winners or losers, no successes or failures, no right or wrong choices. If you try something then it should succeed, even if it's not a good idea. If you work hard you should be guaranteed a victory, even if someone else works harder. They believe the government can weed out loss and setbacks in society by regulating individual lives and making their choices for them.

I agree.

But what irks me about conservatives recently is this desire to try to make things as risky as they possibly can, and form us into more and more of a luck-based society. I have seen more conservatives than not have dreams over college graduates working as their indentured servants someday soon so they can make fun of them and tell them how pathetic they were of making such a choice.

Yet will say the person who won the last Powerball lottery should be respected.

The problem is that humans, by nature, enjoy achieving. We love the feeling of working hard and being declared the winner. It feels good to put in an honest day's work and to get paid for it. There's a wonderful feeling of trying something again and again until you have a major breakthrough.

We also love to be appreciated for our work, and for many, that's not happening right now. Every time I read a report on how terrible we college grads have it, then go to read the comments section where I see those conservatives laughing at college grads like myself, I'm out for the rest of the day and then some.

There's nothing satisfying about sitting around and letting others carry you through life. Liberals, in their effort to eliminate risk and failure, must punish those who are ahead, hence the redistribution of wealth. They underestimate the individual and their ability to provide for themselves and their family. They act as if we aren't capable of running our own lives and need a big government to tell us what to do. Unfortunately there is a big sector of the population that has bought into this and continues to vote for the party that offers them the easy way out, even at the expense of those of us who want the freedom to succeed or failure on our own terms.

I feel like at least for the moment it's more like they're trying to prevent a world where working 2 jobs or 1 job on a college degree still doesn't provide a roof over your head.

Blackwater Babe · Apr 22, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
Fact of the matter is that the Conservative Journalists and commentators were not making speculations.

dgiharris · Apr 22, 2013

Thunder Peel said:
Many of us feel that way because that's what bigger government aims for. If they can have everyone dependent upon them then they control everything: the people, the economy, the private sector. In my experience I have yet to meet someone who lives on welfare who votes Republican or a friend living on government assistance who wishes to get out of it..

Having grown up "in the hood" I want to address this. I don't know how to say this without sounding like an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], but this is idiotic. No one likes being poor. No one likes being on Welfare. If a person on Welfare had a choice to either A) stay on welfare or B) go to community college and learn a trade to make $30k a year the VAST majority of those on Welfare would take that deal if they "could".

I will get to the could below...

Thunder Peel said:
...They're perfectly content to keep mining the system and allowing taxpayers to carry much of their load for them. I realize not everyone is like that but the overwhelming majority of those I've met behave in that manner. Obama's whole platform was built upon that pillar: "It's not fair that someone else has more than you do. I'm going to even it out."....

No. Obama's platform was, "The GOP has gotten us into 2 wars and soiled the good name of America and the unchecked/unregulated greed of the Corporations and special interests groups and GOP have run this country's economy into the ground and I'm going to change all that..."

That was his platform. That was why so many of us voted for him. And to be clear, we weren't so much voting for Obama as we were voting AGAINST the GOP who ran the country into the ground by 2008 putting us on the cusp of a freaking Great Depression while simultaneously committing us to two freaking wars. It irks me how short GOP memories are and how they love to revise history.

We can argue and debate whether Obama is a good president, but don't make it out like the only reason we voted for him was because he promised us free stuff. No. The reason we voted for him is because of the state of the country after 8 years of Bush... The Dems candidate could have been ANYONE and he would have won...

Thunder Peel said:
... We as a country now punish success and hard work by saying it's unfair and stacked against certain individuals, even though many of those who have so much got there by starting out with nothing. If you live in America you're already on equal turf, regardless of what the left says. It's up to you to decide what you will do with your life.
...

This is just a pure fallacy and fantasy and one of the things that disenfranchises the poor from ever even considering the GOP party. Did you know that there are poor school districts in which students do not have books? And there are a lot of poor districts that don't have computers or labs or music programs or art programs and have even lost their accreditation?

The truth is that we are not all on an equal footing yet GOP types like to believe that we are and then subsequently craft policies based on that flawed assumption. [/QUOTE]

Thunder Peel said:
... It's up to you to decide what you will do with your life.

I can agree with this, but lets not pretend that we are all starting our climb to the top from a place/position of equal footing ...

Thunder Peel said:
What irks me about the progressive agenda is their desire to eliminate any kind of risk or loss in life. They want a world where there are no winners or losers, no successes or failures, no right or wrong choices. If you try something then it should succeed, even if it's not a good idea. If you work hard you should be guaranteed a victory, even if someone else works harder. They believe the government can weed out loss and setbacks in society by regulating individual lives and making their choices for them. .

I really don't know what to say to this. Seems like a convoluted mess of emotion and weird logic that almost makes a point I can agree with but isn't very precise...

I do see some of this in elementary schools where they purposefully don't keep score when they play soccer so "everyone can be a winner". I hate that. Or when they eliminated dodgeball in many PE classes (I loved dodgeball). I also see this in what I call the wussification of America by our school systems being to overly sensitive in regards to kids...

So from that standpoint, I kinda agree with you. Other than that, I don't think it applies to adults or to legislative policies...

Thunder Peel said:
....The problem is that humans, by nature, enjoy achieving. We love the feeling of working hard and being declared the winner. It feels good to put in an honest day's work and to get paid for it. There's a wonderful feeling of trying something again and again until you have a major breakthrough. There's nothing satisfying about sitting around and letting others carry you through life.....

I want to stop here and address this. Believe it or not, poor people and people on welfare absolutely love the above feeling. All people do. I could give you hundreds of stories of people getting off welfare... So you need to understand that your above statement isn't something that ONLY applies to GOP types, it applies to 95% of everyone...

Thunder Peel said:
....Liberals, in their effort to eliminate risk and failure, must punish those who are ahead, hence the redistribution of wealth.

Here is where you diverge into La-La-Limbaugh-Hate-Liberals-Land

I think the key difference between GOP types such as yourself and Liberals is the root assumptions governing the nature of the Environment that fosters opportunity or what I will refer to as the Opportunity Environment (OE)

GOP types in my opinion believe that the OE is more or less the same for everyone.

Liberals, in my opinion, believe the OE (Opportunity Environment) is not the same.

Since GOP types think the OE is the same, they do not see the need for any government assistance and view such assistance as wasteful or handouts

Since Liberals believe the OE is different, they believe that assistance is vital to help not only those individuals but the nation as a whole

In this instance, I think the Liberals have the right of it.

Thunder Peel said:
... They underestimate the individual and their ability to provide for themselves and their family. They act as if we aren't capable of running our own lives and need a big government to tell us what to do....

I thought the GOP does more of this than Liberals. GOP seems to be the one big into telling the public what it CAN'T do, especially in regards to gay marriage...

But FWIW, I will concede that both parties are way too active in passing morality based legislation...

Thunder Peel said:
... Unfortunately there is a big sector of the population that has bought into this and continues to vote for the party that offers them the easy way out, even at the expense of those of us who want the freedom to succeed or failure on our own terms.

Understand that what you claim to believe, many Liberals believe the same thing. But I think you are blind to the other side of the equation.

Corporations and Wall Street almost torched this country to the freaking ground just a few years ago. Do you remember that? The thing that disenfranchises me the most with the GOP party is they act like the 2007 - 2008 housing meltdown NEVER HAPPENED.

The GOP is the party of Corporations, Wall Street, and "the rich". And the majority, the VAST majority of Americans are not Corporate Executives or Wall Street or rich.

The GOP does not project an image of looking out for the middle class, for right or wrong, the GOP projects an image of looking out for the interests of Corporations, Wall Street, and the rich in general.

So why would the public vote for the party that supports the people who almost burnt this country to the ground just 4-5 years ago?

My point is that there are LEGITIMATE reasons for not liking the GOP party and when you have a choice between two turds, you'll choose the shiniest and right now the Dems are the shiniest of the two turds available.

GarfieldJL · Apr 22, 2013

Blackwater Babe said:

Thanks, I didn't realize I had left out the word, "wild," as in wild speculations...

Ana the Ist · Apr 22, 2013

SolomonVII said:
The OP is specifically asking for what is the progressive agenda that people on the right are talking about. It is the conservative point of view on progressivism that he wants to have explained.

If various liberals do not define themselves in such a way, that is great.
For that means that they have found common cause with conservatives who are fighting against exactly those forces that these various liberals disagree with too.

You are correct in stating that I do want to hear the conservative opinion on what the liberal agenda is...I doubt I would even be able to ask such a question of liberals because their opinions vary so wildly that many consider the whole notion of a "liberal agenda" laughable. However, I wouldn't say that just because a liberal disagrees with a conservative's opinion on the liberal agenda then said liberal then must have a common cause with the conservative on a particular issue.

For example, I'm sure every liberal here would disagree with being characterized as seeking to "destroy the united states of america"...this surely doesn't equate to being in agreement with any conservatives regarding any issues that conservative thinks are destroying the US.

Rion · Apr 22, 2013

revanneosl said:
You see - that right there is the sort of mischaracterization of liberals that I'm talking about.

Remember that Progressives hijacked that title and still often use it today. Technically, even Progressive is incorrect. They're best described as Statists.

SolomonVII · Apr 22, 2013

Ana the Ist said:
You are correct in stating that I do want to hear the conservative opinion on what the liberal agenda is...I doubt I would even be able to ask such a question of liberals because their opinions vary so wildly that many consider the whole notion of a "liberal agenda" laughable. However, I wouldn't say that just because a liberal disagrees with a conservative's opinion on the liberal agenda then said liberal then must have a common cause with the conservative on a particular issue.

For example, I'm sure every liberal here would disagree with being characterized as seeking to "destroy the united states of america"...this surely doesn't equate to being in agreement with any conservatives regarding any issues that conservative thinks are destroying the US.

I am trying to keep it civil.
Of course, progressives, or statists, or liberals would not agree with destroying America. It may be the goal of anarchists perhaps, or Islamists maybe, but for the vast majority of Americans it would not be intentional.
Nevertheless, it is a different set of values that different groups are working from that define the agenda.
Conservatives tend not to see malevolence in a progressive's intent. Most do not see liberals as evil, but as wrong.
Very often, the converse is not true though. To the extent that liberals define themselves against a conserverative agenda, which they often see as based in racism, bigotry and greed, conservatives are not just wrong in their eyes, but evil.

Recall though, that what was being responding at that point in the thread had nothing to do with inflammatory rhetoric of the destruction of America, but it had to do with a specifically defined progressive agenda. If that does not define a liberals own point of view, then they need to exclude themselves from the criticism on those points. They simply are not part of the progressive agenda as it has been historically defined.

Liberals may vary wildly on how they define themselves, but the criticism was specific and focused, and based in a definite agenda that has played itself out in American politics since the early decades of the last century.

Savior2006 · Apr 22, 2013

Thunder Peel said:
Many of us feel that way because that's what bigger government aims for. If they can have everyone dependent upon them then they control everything: the people, the economy, the private sector. In my experience I have yet to meet someone who lives on welfare who votes Republican or a friend living on government assistance who wishes to get out of it.

Really, cause I know a guy who fits both criteria. He and his wife had kid at the age of 20, were both on welfare as a result of the latter not having a job, and both thought Obama was full of crap. Your analogy is very egocentric.

Liberals, in their effort to eliminate risk and failure, must punish those who are ahead, hence the redistribution of wealth. They underestimate the individual and their ability to provide for themselves and their family. They act as if we aren't capable of running our own lives and need a big government to tell us what to do. Unfortunately there is a big sector of the population that has bought into this and continues to vote for the party that offers them the easy way out, even at the expense of those of us who want the freedom to succeed or failure on our own terms.

Are you done insulting everyone who votes Democrat? I could be the richest man in the world and I'll never vote for your party. Most of the people in my family have jobs and none of them are going to vote for your party. I'm sick of that being the excuse.

Ana the Ist · Apr 22, 2013

I think that a big part of the reason for the US's huge political divide these days is the population itself. So many people on both sides of the aisle don't understand the difference between entertainment and news. Obviously, the media shares part of the blame for blurring the line between entertainment and news...but at the end of the day, its up to the audience to determine which is which.

As a general rule of thumb, the easy way to tell them apart is their sourcing. If the show you're watching is getting its information from a reporter or journalist....someone who actually goes out, gathers facts, interviews relevant people, etc....that show is actual news. That doesn't make the reporting true or untrue...but it is information that is coming from those people who are a part of the story. However, if the show you're watching doesn't get its information this way, and they use stories from other news outlets as their sources, then they are most likely entertainment. By simply giving the viewer an opinion about a news story...they can make assumptions, give opinions, and draw speculation about the story and not have to worry about whether or not anything they've said is true.

For people who watch these entertainment shows and consider them as actual news, it can become a problem of being misinformed or altogether uninformed. The actual news now has to compete with these entertainment shows and it has caused a lot of problems for real reporters. For example, it now seems like everyone wants these news sources to have all the information about any major event immediately. While someone like Hannity or Olberman can speculate about guilty parties, motivations, co-conspirators all they like...if an actual reporter does that and frames it as factual information, they could lose their job.

In an age where so much information is available instantly, it seems fewer and fewer are willing to wait around for "facts".

Ana the Ist · Apr 22, 2013

SolomonVII said:
I am trying to keep it civil.
Of course, progressives, or statists, or liberals would not agree with destroying America. It may be the goal of anarchists perhaps, or Islamists maybe, but for the vast majority of Americans it would not be intentional.
Nevertheless, it is a different set of values that different groups are working from that define the agenda.
Conservatives tend not to see malevolence in a progressive's intent. Most do not see liberals as evil, but as wrong.
Very often, the converse is not true though. To the extent that liberals define themselves against a conserverative agenda, which they often see as based in racism, bigotry and greed, conservatives are not just wrong in their eyes, but evil.

Recall though, that what was being responding at that point in the thread had nothing to do with inflammatory rhetoric of the destruction of America, but it had to do with a specifically defined progressive agenda. If that does not define a liberals own point of view, then they need to exclude themselves from the criticism on those points. They simply are not part of the progressive agenda as it has been historically defined.

Liberals may vary wildly on how they define themselves, but the criticism was specific and focused, and based in a definite agenda that has played itself out in American politics since the early decades of the last century.

I'll mostly agree with that first paragraph...and I appreciate your attempt to keep the conversation civil. It's the second paragraph that really intrigues me...you say it so matter-of-factly. I wasn't aware the progressive agenda had even been defined historically, rather, this is a term that I've only heard in recent years...by commentators and entertainers who speak of it as if it were fact.

Progressivism itself is defined as " general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform." While considered slightly left of center...there isn't specifically anything liberal about it. One could be a fiscal progressive and at the same time be conservative on say...foreign policy. IMO the word has been warped by the commentators and entertainers on the right in a desperate attempt to declare a new enemy to conservative values. It's been demonized to a point that almost seems cartoonish. After all, what would happen to the jobs of men like Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck if they didn't have a group to point their fingers at and declare them enemies of everything that is good, right, Christian, and traditional? Methinks their ratings would dwindle to almost nothing.

The Sinister Liberal Agenda....

Annuit Cœptis

Well-Known Member

Mystically signifying since 1985

Well-Known Member

Mystically signifying since 1985

Well-Known Member

You don't eat a peacock until it's cooked.

Mystically signifying since 1985

You don't eat a peacock until it's cooked.

Regular Member

Oldie... very very oldie...

Well-Known Member

Old Crusty Vet

Regular Member

Aggressively serene!

Annuit Cœptis

Well-Known Member

Savior2006

Guest

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Similar threads