Ignatius J. Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ok, you caught me exagerating as I am wont to do. He's is, though, cutting funding for alot of them. "President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3319-2005Feb6.html BS again buddy. You show me a time when bush has pushed a spending decrease on these programs through congress and then I'll agree with you. Every year we get the same nonsense from the republican party. Bush comes out and claims that he's for lowering spending by proposing a budget that cuts spending across the board, social programs, corporate wellfare, everything that people love to criticize in government largesse. Then congress passes a budget roughly twice the size of bush's budget with nary a peep from the white house. When the whitehouse and congress really disagree on a budget the government shuts down. We've seen it done before, so we know it's possible. since that has never once happened in bush's term, I think it's pretty safe to say that the republican congress is doing roughly what bush wants. It's not like bush has ever even threatened a veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I would agree in terms of spending (but not what he's spending on) and immigration. But the rest? Certainly not a liberal on foreign policy. Social programs, he's cutting em all. Actually, his FP is his most "liberal" position. It smacks of Wilsonianism which is diametrically opposed to right-wing beliefs. Consider the fact that only three suposedly right-wing Presidents have taken us to war (and two of them are named Bush). BTW, Bush has not ever cut and will not cut any social programs. No government program has been cut since the 1950s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 My understanding of "progressive" is similar to Predicto's characterization. Progressives are more radical than liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Well the policies of the parties and by association the terms used to describe those policies change over time. That is what I am really getting out of these responses. The current definition of progressive doesn't seem to fit me so I guess my cousin was wrong. I'll have to try and glom onto one of the current labels that is more accurate. At least for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 OK Tater and Ignatius you've convinced me that Bush and the current congress are closet - a. progressives b. liberals :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 KAO, Probably progressives but a better word would be statist. Statist are evil, left-wingers are just stupid :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Depends on how you define them, I use them interchangeably. As long as you clearly define either term for yourself you'll be fine. In terms of a set definition, almost no one has a term we will all agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 kao given thier blatant disregard for personal freedom I would go with progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 kao given thier blatant disregard for personal freedom I would go with progressive. Why lablel them with a leftist term, republican is more fitting, it's what they are after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 cho, won't do that because it would still make them heads and shoulders better than the Demcrats. Call them Repulbicrats and Demopubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I think it's a matter of semantics. It seems like every democrat out there wants to be labeled a progressive right now. I think it's because conservatives often tune out what someone is saying when they know someone is a hardcore liberal. Similarly, many liberals shut out hardcore conservatives. I guess that's why a lot of conservatives consider themselves "traditionalists." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 But the trouble is that's not true. You never saw john kerry use the word Progressive but he would refer to himself as a liberal. not every democrat refers to themselves as a progressive. Just the ones that are always getting on Fox News as symbols of everything wrong with this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Progressives want change. We feel this country is great, but could be better. We feel America is a work in progress(hint *progress/progressive*) and just because this country is great, doesn't mean it can't get much better. A progressive isn't necessarily a liberal or conservative, but the term is associated more with liberals because conservative is often looked at more as "traditional" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Id say Progressives in the sense would rather have their goals furthered over the Constitution...that is reshape our political institutions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I will have to disagree with that. I live in a Black/White; Right/Wrong; Good/Evil world. There is no "grey area" in my world. There never has been and never will be. You only have to "hold your nose" as you indicate if you are looking at the wrong absolutes or at things that are not truly absolutes to begin with. I don't mean to insult but I've always seen binary thinking - black/white - as being an alternative to actually thinking. It's easier to simply apply a standard to everything and by doing so save yourself from the details that take a black and white world and make it almost completely grey. I'd like it if you could provide an example of an absolute. As I mentioned before I find them to be artificial constructs. If I am indeed simply "looking at the wrong absolutes" I'd like to be enlightened. Also another aspect of being a "moderate" is willing to accept that compromise is needed to move forward. Maybe this is why so many idealist view moderates as having no moral basis or drive. I'd argue that this is being reasonable and geared towards reaching results. Moving towards your goal even if not reaching it completely is viewed as progress while idealist tend to want all or nothing - and usually get nothing done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I don't mean to insult but I've always seen binary thinking - black/white - as being an alternative to actually thinking. It's easier to simply apply a standard to everything and by doing so save yourself from the details that take a black and white world and make it almost completely grey. No insult taken. To do so I would have to care what you think, which I do not. B/W thinking is possible only when one truly has a set of morals/values that they live by. It's easy, as you indicated because there is no deep investigation necessary. The item/issue either falls into the Black or the White catergory. The nuances/details, which are often used by people on one side of a discussion to make their position appear more moderate or closer to the opposite position are simply smokescreens and nothing more. I'd like it if you could provide an example of an absolute. As I mentioned before I find them to be artificial constructs. If I am indeed simply "looking at the wrong absolutes" I'd like to be enlightened. I'll give you two..... Capitalism vs. Socialism & Personal Responsibility vs. Societal Intervention. In both cases the second item is inately WRONG on its base. Also another aspect of being a "moderate" is willing to accept that compromise is needed to move forward. Maybe this is why so many idealist view moderates as having no moral basis or drive. I'd argue that this is being reasonable and geared towards reaching results. Moving towards your goal even if not reaching it completely is viewed as progress while idealist tend to want all or nothing - and usually get nothing done. I will agree with your comments. I do not see compromise as a useful option. I'd rather get nothing than to get something, but less than what I want. I see that "less than" position as being the same thing as getting nothing. One of my favorite quotes should explain it: "If you can't win, don't play." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 It's easy, as you indicated because there is no deep investigation necessary. How about investigating what is right and what is wrong, what is black and what is white? Is that important? Do you claim to be the ultimate judge of Right and Wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 "Liberals" vs "progressives" and "conservatives" vs. "traditionalists" is just semantic posturing. If you go back to 1994, the Repubs, led by Gingrich and Limbaugh, went out on a rather clever campaign to associate "liberal" with other words that had negative connotations. Because the Democrats have been playing defense ever since the Vietnam War, they let the Repubs get away with making "liberal" a politically dirty word. The Democrats replaced "liberal" with "progressive", because it's much harder to give a word with root "progress" a negative connotation. Controlling the lexicology of the debate is one of the main reasons the Repubs have been so succesfull in recent elections, and that is why you'll hear talking points repeated almost verbatim by conservative commentators all over the media on a daily basis. The rise of the term "progressives" is a legacy of that control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 No insult taken. To do so I would have to care what you think, which I do not. B/W thinking is possible only when one truly has a set of morals/values that they live by. It's easy, as you indicated because there is no deep investigation necessary. The item/issue either falls into the Black or the White catergory. The nuances/details, which are often used by people on one side of a discussion to make their position appear more moderate or closer to the opposite position are simply smokescreens and nothing more.Thanks for responding. I think that you’ve actually strengthened my position that binary views are a sort of an alternative to thinking with this line – “there is no deep investigation necessary.” which I think captures the process nicely. No thought paid to the details just a quick good or bad based on it’s outward appearance and you’re done. No calories wasted. I'll give you two..... Capitalism vs. Socialism & Personal Responsibility vs. Societal Intervention. In both cases the second item is inately WRONG on its base.Both of those are wonderful examples of why the world is not black and white. Mixed economies rule in the modern world because the weaknesses in both systems have been in large part discovered through practice. As for personal responsibility versus social intervention I’d need to see your definitions in order to comment further but I’m almost certain either side of that spectrum engaged in fully would have immoral examples of behavior – which goes to my original point that in order to be consistently black and white you have to hold your nose or pretend not to see thing.I will agree with your comments. I do not see compromise as a useful option. I'd rather get nothing than to get something, but less than what I want. I see that "less than" position as being the same thing as getting nothing. One of my favorite quotes should explain it: "If you can't win, don't play." That position simply isn’t workable in a democratic society IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 How about investigating what is right and what is wrong, what is black and what is white? Is that important? Do you claim to be the ultimate judge of Right and Wrong? NO, I don't claim to be the ultimate judge of Right and Wrong. To do so would be to ignore the last several thousand years of common sense and tradition. The easiest means of uncovering the concepts of Right and Wrong exists in two documents.... The US Constitution and the social commentaries in the Old Testament of the Bible (not the religious nonsense). Common sense is also a very useful tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The easiest means of uncovering the concepts of Right and Wrong exists in two documents.... The US Constitution and the social commentaries in the Old Testament of the Bible (not the religious nonsense). Common sense is also a very useful tool. Why do you believe that you are using those tools properly? You read them and understand them one way. You understand them that way. YOU. What makes you think you understand what they actually mean? What if you misunderstood things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Thanks for responding. I think that you’ve actually strengthened my position that binary views are a sort of an alternative to thinking with this line – “there is no deep investigation necessary.” which I think captures the process nicely. No thought paid to the details just a quick good or bad based on it’s outward appearance and you’re done. No calories wasted. No problem. Glad to oblige you. The concepts of "debate" and "investigation" are, for the most part, serious wastes of time. Especially on the B/W issues in the world. If you truly believe in something (which I will admit very few people do anymore), there is no room for compromise in the belief. There's no need to look into the details because it's simply going to lead you to the same point while wasting time and energy. Both of those are wonderful examples of why the world is not black and white. Mixed economies rule in the modern world because the weaknesses in both systems have been in large part discovered through practice. As for personal responsibility versus social intervention I’d need to see your definitions in order to comment further but I’m almost certain either side of that spectrum engaged in fully would have immoral examples of behavior – which goes to my original point that in order to be consistently black and white you have to hold your nose or pretend not to see thing. I'll disagree on the economic issue. Personal Resposibility vs. Social Intervention can be best explained this way.... "John loses his job (for whatever reason). Does John turn to the government to get him through his hardship or does he deal with it himself? Does he look for a handout, or does he make the best of the situation on his own? Regarding the "hold your nose" concept you've discussed several times.... That only happens when you pay lip service to a belief rather than actually believing it. That position simply isn’t workable in a democratic society IMO. That's why it's a good thing we live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Why do you believe that you are using those tools properly?You read them and understand them one way. You understand them that way. YOU. What makes you think you understand what they actually mean? What if you misunderstood things? Maybe I need to explain this a little better.... I don't believe in interpretation. I believe in THE LETTER OF THE LAW.... If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...." It means CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW regarding that issue. If it says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." that's what it means. No interpretation necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 No problem. Glad to oblige you.The concepts of "debate" and "investigation" are, for the most part, serious wastes of time. Especially on the B/W issues in the world. If you truly believe in something (which I will admit very few people do anymore), there is no room for compromise in the belief. There's no need to look into the details because it's simply going to lead you to the same point while wasting time and energy. My issue with that stance is that I find placing ideals over reality is dangerous. This, for example, is why communism failed. Instead of looking into the reality of what motivates the individual communists cling to ideals that simply don't work. In pure unregulated capitalism you get a ton of abuse as witnessed in the early industrial age in America. I'll disagree on the economic issue.Personal Resposibility vs. Social Intervention can be best explained this way.... "John loses his job (for whatever reason). Does John turn to the government to get him through his hardship or does he deal with it himself? Does he look for a handout, or does he make the best of the situation on his own? Regarding the "hold your nose" concept you've discussed several times.... That only happens when you pay lip service to a belief rather than actually believing it. There are economic reasons the government hands out checks to the unemployed. It's a lesson learned during the great depression - if the economy slides and people laid off can't spend money, this causes the economy to worsen, more people get laid off, and the cycle quickens. Most think that unemployment checks are simply the government trying to be nice.... it isn't. It's a safety net that protects the employed as much as the unemployed.A perfect example of a black and white approach failing. That's why it's a good thing we live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. You are right but my point stands. I think that in a society of mixed views demanding things be all the way in one direction or the other creates little more then anger and frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Maybe I need to explain this a little better....I don't believe in interpretation. I believe in THE LETTER OF THE LAW.... If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...." It means CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW regarding that issue. If it says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." that's what it means. No interpretation necessary. :laugh: You don't believe in interpretation of the law eh?? What is the function of COURTS??? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.