Progressivism: Enemy of America. Enemy of Humanity.

Yes .. in the end that's what it actually comes down to, for the majority of them.

That, plus a little cheap and easy "I'm compassionate!".

 

Ironically, it's probably better summed up by 'resistance to change'.

They think that whatever worked in 1969, will work forever. They are fixed on a single answer to an ever changing question. In other words, they're DEEPLY conservative.

 

So why try to stop it now? That's what Progressives do .. resist progress.

 

They have the same ideological roots, based on marxist collectivism, and darwinist fluidity of facts.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/newton-vs-darwin-basis-for-worldviews.488631/

 

The pseudoscience pretension, and virtue signaling from progressive ideologues, shows the enmity toward humanity, and the danger of this indoctrinated belief system.

Regarding the Corona virus, mocking and jeers were the early responses for the evidenced based decision to close travel with China. Italy had 'hug a Chinaman!' celebrations, to virtue signal their belief that political correctness would override scientific truth.

The result has been death.

Welcome to Progresso World..

 

The shrill is strong in this thread.

 

Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive and was a Republîcan. It was the battle between Roosevelt and Taft that began the process of turning the Republican Party into a big business conservative party, and began to drive away liberals.

In the election of 1912 there was a three way race between the Republican Taft, the Democratic Wilson, and the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt. The conservative Taft was in last place and Roosevelt in 2nd place.

Roosevelt fought for social justice and, by executive action began the preserving of land for national parks. Created the FDA and supported labor and sought to reign in the power of big business, along with supporting women suffrage.

Ever notice that there are no conservatives on Mount Rushmore. There is Washington, who was rather neutral, as to party affiliation. Jefferson and Lincoln were liberals, and Roosevelt was a progressive.

 

I think that you are giving it too much credit to call it hyperbolic. I would argue that it has more to do with Republican ideology than reality. Conservatives like to condemn everything liberal or progressive, as somehow inferior to conservative thought, yet everywhere around the country where liberals and progressives dominate, life is better.

 

Trump is a progressive?

 

It is a rant and one not based on reality. Your basic premise is that progressives squash individualism and freedoms. Yet the history of the progressive movement has seen women and minorities gain the right to vote and homosexuals the right to marry. Workers gained many rights, including things like 40 hour work weeks with overtime pay and safe working conditions. To say that progressive ideas take away rights and freedoms is just false. Not at all based in reality.

 

You claim all this but offer no real examples. The history of progressivism is the history of expanding rights and freedoms. And in every case it has been conservatives doing their utmost to block those expansions.

 

Or everyone looking and thinking the same. Conformity is a synonym of conservative. Look at a picture of assembled conservatives and they all kind of look the same and dress similarly. Take a look at a group of progressives and you will see a great deal of variety.

 

And what progress have they been trying to stop?

 

What a twist. What alternate universe do you live in.

It was geologists who first discovered and coined the term evolution long before Darwin came along.


To say that there is a world view difference between Newton and Darwin really misses the mark. Both are scientific world views. The real dividing line is between the scientific world view and the religious world view. This has been true since the Enlightenment.

Just look at our political divide and you will see how true it is. It is the Republicans who are always pushing for religious ideas and rejecting science. Take global warming for example.

There is a reason that most scientists self identify as liberal or progressive. While the Grahams and Falwells of the world, and their followers, are quite conservative.

 

Naw, you deal in fallacies and belief.

 

I don't think so. Every one of them would accept communism before I would.

I think most of them are Russian propagandists. We have at least two of them posting regularly on this forum. They don't use bombastic hyperbole. They use reasonable criticism.

 

Basically true which is why I labeled Wilson as the first main stream progressive, except the Rushmore thing. First off, Rushmore has no relevance; secondly, in the time of the presidents on Rushmore liberal and conservative had opposite meanings than they have today.

 

Translation... Yup, you got it nailed....

 

In the end, though, they both agreed that limited government was the right path, and regardless of their disagreements they both fundamentally agreed that centralized power ultimately caused corruption against the people and their freedoms.

 

We refer to it as the plantation approach. This is truly what progressivity gets you in the long run. Democrats are, and have always been, the party of the plantation. Elites who enjoy the slave labor of others to keep them the elites. Legislation to artificially restrict competition so the plantation never actually has to be productive. and slaves for the masters to lord over, as is their birthrights.... Yup, every time I see Nancy walk into the building, you get the notion that she feels naked without her whip.....

 

But they never agreed on an absolute line for the role of the Federal Government. We've been having that same argument
for 200 plus years. And its entirely possible that both approaches may work, just that there may be different time-lines.

 

Dude - if you have had any success in life it all, it is because you have leveraged cheap labor at some point - doesn't matter your politics.

 

LOL>... no. In fact. most labor in my field is anything but cheap. Success isn't defined by "cheap" Its defined by results, also none of which are usually cheap. But, the value is finding solutions that become cost effective for the benefits that they provide, which, again, isn't a function of cheap.

 

You're free to work harder at your profession because cheap labor getting food to your table and clothes on your back and the raw materials that lie at the base of your industry. You are leveraging cheap labor to produce your goods - you just haven't examined your work flow enough to realize it.

 

Have you been to WholeFoods before? Nothing about it is cheap. I do try not to use brands who we know use slave labor, although I am using an Apple product to connect. Yes, they use slave labor but it doesn't impact my professional field. And no, my work flow doesn't leverage cheap labor. In fact we try super hard to just use highly qualified labor at the market rates. It serves better than relying on or hoping that non qualified quota folks might could do the work. You know, like what Nancy shoved into the Wuhan Flu relief bill... But perhaps you can use that as an example going forward of how yes the democrats are all for their insistence on slave labor.

So let's do a little experiment then. So when Joe Biden suggests that the US shut down the oil industry, where does the imported oil then have to come from? Slave labor in the ME? Venezuela?? Russia??? You seem to find it derisive that not everyone is so enamored with your preferred method of ensuing that everyone must take advantage of the slave labor that you've provided... It's ghastly....