PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on March 13, 2018, 11:56:54 AM
-
They're called Progressives because they believe in moving toward something, in progressing toward a goal.
What they're progressing toward, whether they acknowledge it or not is permissiveness. The right to have sex with whoever you want without consequence, the right to live however you want without consequences, the right to say whatever you want without consequences. The right to cross international borders without consequence.
The trouble is, with all this comes the right to rob, murder, rape and steal...all supposedly without consequences.
They won't acknowledge it, but they are progressing toward crime, including shooting up a school. It certainly wasn't law abiding conservatives doing all these things. They are progressing toward anarchy.
-
They're called Progressives because they believe in moving toward something, in progressing toward a goal.
What they're progressing toward, whether they acknowledge it or not is permissiveness. The right to have sex with whoever you want without consequence, the right to live however you want without consequences, the right to say whatever you want without consequences. The right to cross international borders without consequence.
The trouble is, with all this comes the right to rob, murder, rape and steal...all supposedly without consequences.
They won't acknowledge it, but they are progressing toward crime, including shooting up a school. It certainly wasn't law abiding conservatives doing all these things. They are progressing toward anarchy.
In the "non-permissive" 50's we didn't have kids shooting up other kids in classrooms.
-
Strange. I've seen you post that "freedom" is your ultimate guide. The right to do as you please, unless it infringe upon the rights of others. That would include having sex with whomever you want, living however you want, and saying whatever you want, without consequence (from the State), unless it infringe upon the rights of others.
So, no, it doesn't necessarily progress toward crime.
But anyway, I'm not sure you've created a good description of current political Progressives, and your post seems discordant with your previously-stated beliefs.
-
True Progressives desire nothing but government control of everything they want.
It is an impossible double standard.
On the one hand bflynn talks about freedom as an abstract goal, but then assigns concrete elements to the formerly abstract goal.
IT is NEVER the desire of progressives to allow for freedom of speech, or behavior. It seems ALWAYS to be the intention of progressives to subvert freedom with statism and rigid rules that fence everyone into a small stream of allowable opinions, acceptable speech, per-permitted activities - but only once they are washed in the oil of communism.
The only freedoms progressives desire is for everyone to feel free to behave EXACTLY as directed by the government, immediately after being given orders to behave in that fashion.
What a hypocritical set of claims.
Progressives are the most regressive people in America.
-
In the fifties we called them communist.
In the sixties we called the socialist.
In the seventies we called them environmentalist.
In the eighties we called them democrats.
Today they have evolved into progressives, but the game remains the same.
-
Confession time.
In the late 60s, early 70s I was a progressive. Free speech, free love, no rules, live and let live. I grew up in SoCal, and it was a beautiful thing.
Today's progressive wants all that too. Here's the dichotomy. They want the reigns of authority to FORCE their program of progressive idealism whether you agree or not.
In 1969 we didn't see our parents social mores. We didn't agree with their ethics, or their accountability. We wanted that change. We wanted it all to be easy. Of course, we went on and got jobs, we went to war(that we strongly protested against). We had kids, we had mortgages. In short - we grew up. Cat's in the cradle became all too real.
It's weird for me - I sometimes admire the stridency of the progs. I see what their trying to do. The answer for them is not in the courts, or the legislature, or the exec. It's not in any govt, and not in the reigns of ersatz authority. They're going about it all wrong. Sell it to the nation. Sell it to the people. Put it out there, and try it(whatever 'it' is), see if it floats or sinks.
Yep - I was a progressive. So proud to be on the front. We walked out of HS classes and stood in silent protest against Vietnam. Mrs Jackson, the English teacher came and stood with us. Mr Woodruff(Woody!) from Biology came and stood with us. Jack, and some others from admin came too. Here's the diff - we did change the nation. Vietnam came to an end. Civil rights advanced, and not due to some laws, but due to the movement of peoples minds. Using the cudgel of bureaucracy to force acceptance of some of the more foul prog plans today will never work. Thank goodness.
-
Free speech, free love, no rules, live and let live.
Sounds more libertarian to me.
-
Well, the labels might have been different('hippy' was tossed around some), but the theory was pretty much the same. I don't recall ever hearing 'progressive' until 15 years or so back.
-
I’ve never cared for their TV commercials. Allstate.
-
So, no, it doesn't necessarily progress toward crime.
Only strange because you're dismissing all problems via this statement. No, it doesn't necessarily progress toward crime. But IF the child misses that point not to harm others, THEN the right to do what they want gives them permission to shoot other people.
The best gun control is self control. because it's also bomb control, knife control, machete control, etc.
-
Only strange because you're dismissing all problems via this statement. No, it doesn't necessarily progress toward crime. But IF the child misses that point not to harm others, THEN the right to do what they want gives them permission to shoot other people.
Do you believe in freedom unless it infringe on the rights of others like you say you do, or not? If you do, help me understand how you can be against folks having sex with whomever they want, or saying whatever they want, unless it infringe upon the rights of others. Your example above doesn't work, because it infringes upon the rights of another, and therefore is NOT permissible by your own definition of freedom.
Your OP just seems like Reductio Ad Absurdum. Could we not carry freedom itself to the same absurd conclusion?
-
Do you believe in freedom unless it infringe on the rights of others like you say you do, or not? If you do, help me understand how you can be against folks having sex with whomever they want, or saying whatever they want, unless it infringe upon the rights of others. Your example above doesn't work, because it infringes upon the rights of another, and therefore is NOT permissible by your own definition of freedom.
Your OP just seems like Reductio Ad Absurdum. Could we not carry freedom itself to the same absurd conclusion?
I'm not saying I am against those things. I am saying I am against permissiveness leading people to shoot others. These other things are examples of permissiveness that support the permissiveness
-
I'm not saying I am against those things. I am saying I am against permissiveness leading people to shoot others. These other things are examples of permissiveness that support the permissiveness
But you do appear to be against those things, because you mention them with apparent disdain in your OP. And I don't know what it means when you say "permissiveness that support the permissiveness".
If the freedom to have sex with whomever you want, unless it infringe on the rights of others, eventually leads to permissive murder, then so does freedom itself. Absurd.
-
But you do appear to be against those things, because you mention them with apparent disdain in your OP. And I don't know what it means when you say "permissiveness that support the permissiveness".
If the freedom to have sex with whomever you want, unless it infringe on the rights of others, eventually leads to permissive murder, then so does freedom itself. Absurd.
I shouldn't type when I'm distracted.
You're right, you are making an absurd statement. You're also making a statement that I do not agree with, nor would I say.
It's like an accident chain - there's a series of things that happens, each builds on the previous. Teaching that people can do whatever they want is one link in that chain.
Making it harder to get a gun won't solve the problem. In the past two weeks we've seen knife and a failed bomb attack. It won't stop because some people still think it's ok to kill.
-
I shouldn't type when I'm distracted.
You're right, you are making an absurd statement. You're also making a statement that I do not agree with, nor would I say.
It's like an accident chain - there's a series of things that happens, each builds on the previous. Teaching that people can do whatever they want is one link in that chain.
Making it harder to get a gun won't solve the problem. In the past two weeks we've seen knife and a failed bomb attack. It won't stop because some people still think it's ok to kill.
You've lost me.
Please reconcile these two seemingly contrasting posts:
1) http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2433.msg43943#msg43943
2) http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2633.msg46661#msg46661
In #1, you advocate complete personal freedom, wherein no law should ever be codified if it forces your will upon another. In other posts I haven't linked, you state your belief in complete freedom, unless it infringe upon the rights of another.
In #2, you lambaste what you believe is the Progressives' push toward, for example, the right to have sex with whomever you want, or say whatever you want. And you further state that this will lead to robbery, murder, rape, and stealing.
These two posts seem wholly incongruent, leaving me quite confused about your position on the matter, and your point in this OP.
-
You've lost me.
No doubt
-
No doubt
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2633.msg46707#msg46707
-
What they're progressing toward, whether they acknowledge it or not is permissiveness. The right to have sex with whoever you want without consequence, the right to live however you want without consequences, the right to say whatever you want without consequences. The right to cross international borders without consequence.
The trouble is, with all this comes the right to rob, murder, rape and steal...all supposedly without consequences.
They won't acknowledge it, but they are progressing toward crime, including shooting up a school. It certainly wasn't law abiding conservatives doing all these things. They are progressing toward anarchy.
Read it again, asechrest.
See bflynn's repetitive use of "without consequences?"
Freedom only works when it is balanced by responsibility.
Personal freedom, personal responsibility. I'm sure you've noted the transformation of personal responsibility into perceived victimhood, a process fueled and ignited by the left and flaccidly accepted by too many leaders on the right.
The consequences of personal choices should not be borne by others. This is a general principle which I'm sure you apply to the children of your partner, in raising them.
America's freedoms, desired by so many who come from restrictive or failed governments, stand clear and in sharp contrast to their absence in many parts of the world. Sophistries and seeming contradictions do not dim the light of freedom. We all know what it means.
That is why Trump. The leftward march was sucking America into a dark place. I've talked with many people who felt on November 9, 2016 as if they could breathe again.
The "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" are not always on distant shores.
-
This topic is a new idea for me - so I am think thinking out the rough ideas.
The basic premise is still intact - that with freedoms to enjoy life come freedoms that can hurt people too. I think either the sophistication of that second part is lost on progressives and their target audience OR that the two are inseparable. My personal proof comes in the form of the number of spiteful things I see progressives and their target audience willing to do for the sole purposes of revenge or to cause pain.
I will continue thinking about this.
-
OK, sorry but I gotta go back to the 60s again, and see if this is related to the progressive agenda.
Back then, the 'progressives'(hippy, dropouts, my ge-ge-generation, whatev) decided to create communes. They decided to find unused fertile land, set up their utopia, and live free and easy off the fat of the land. Well, only one problem; While everyone was sitting around stoned, and screwing their brains out, it devolved that the 'free' land they were on A) didn't belong to them. B) didn't support humans unless it was farmed/ranched. Once the free thinking utopians figured out they had to till the soil, plant the seeds, water the crop, weed the undesirable stuff, pick, process the fruits it turned out that it was a ton of backbreaking work.
Guess what happened? One of two things broke out. 1) indentured servitude. 2) nasty old capitalism. Most if not all of the communes devolved to an autocracy where there was some Manson type overlord who doled out tasks and times; 'John will drive the tractor, Mary will sow the seeds, Tim will water and weed, Jane will pick the crop, etc'. Or, all of them were proscribed from the 'fruits' unless they could show some type of contribution or trade in labor or, gasp! money.
FF to CA of today. Here is one of the platform statements from the Dem party: "All people deserve the opportunity to pursue the American Dream and have the financial resources to live in economic security. We support efforts to enact programs, such as a guaranteed government jobs program and a universal basic income/rent or housing to eliminate poverty while improving prospects to secure good jobs that help people climb the economic ladder.". Well. Isn't that interesting. Not only do the progs of today want their free land, free food, free love, but unlike the prev generation they want ME the TAXPAYER to fund it!
This is what's wrong with prog thinking. Fine, I have no objection to a voluntary, and privately funded universal basic income. Maybe it's a great idea. Maybe everyone REGARDLESS of age, color, religion, party, gender, nationality, or income gets a basic income. Cuz, it's only fair if it applies universally, right? That means every person over 18 in the state gets their free money. Now, the Dems have decided that this free money should come from - oh yes, you guessed it, right out of the tax based treasury.
This is progs today. Back in the bad old days we just wanted to be left alone, to try and setup our own utopia, free of govt interference, and no rules, no laws, no nasty things like land deeds, or hard labor(yeah, right). Now, not only do the progs want all this stuff, but they want taxpayers to fund it all. Plus the overhead, and graft, corruption that comes with it.
FAQs: Are illegal aliens entitled? Sure, why not. Do people have to register to get money? Of course not! just show up with your hand out. Is it open to anyone IN California? Yes, even those passing through for a year, month, week, day. Must I show state income tax statement to get my free money? Hahahaha! of course not you dope.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/california-democratic-party-platform-supports-universal-basic-income.html
YMMV
-
OK, sorry but I gotta go back to the 60s again, and see if this is related to the progressive agenda.
Back then, the 'progressives'(hippy, dropouts, my ge-ge-generation, whatev) decided to create communes. They decided to find unused fertile land, set up their utopia, and live free and easy off the fat of the land. Well, only one problem; While everyone was sitting around stoned, and screwing their brains out, it devolved that the 'free' land they were on A) didn't belong to them. B) didn't support humans unless it was farmed/ranched. Once the free thinking utopians figured out they had to till the soil, plant the seeds, water the crop, weed the undesirable stuff, pick, process the fruits it turned out that it was a ton of backbreaking work.
Guess what happened? One of two things broke out. 1) indentured servitude. 2) nasty old capitalism. Most if not all of the communes devolved to an autocracy where there was some Manson type overlord who doled out tasks and times; 'John will drive the tractor, Mary will sow the seeds, Tim will water and weed, Jane will pick the crop, etc'. Or, all of them were proscribed from the 'fruits' unless they could show some type of contribution or trade in labor or, gasp! money.
FF to CA of today. Here is one of the platform statements from the Dem party: "All people deserve the opportunity to pursue the American Dream and have the financial resources to live in economic security. We support efforts to enact programs, such as a guaranteed government jobs program and a universal basic income/rent or housing to eliminate poverty while improving prospects to secure good jobs that help people climb the economic ladder.". Well. Isn't that interesting. Not only do the progs of today want their free land, free food, free love, but unlike the prev generation they want ME the TAXPAYER to fund it!
This is what's wrong with prog thinking. Fine, I have no objection to a voluntary, and privately funded universal basic income. Maybe it's a great idea. Maybe everyone REGARDLESS of age, color, religion, party, gender, nationality, or income gets a basic income. Cuz, it's only fair if it applies universally, right? That means every person over 18 in the state gets their free money. Now, the Dems have decided that this free money should come from - oh yes, you guessed it, right out of the tax based treasury.
This is progs today. Back in the bad old days we just wanted to be left alone, to try and setup our own utopia, free of govt interference, and no rules, no laws, no nasty things like land deeds, or hard labor(yeah, right). Now, not only do the progs want all this stuff, but they want taxpayers to fund it all. Plus the overhead, and graft, corruption that comes with it.
FAQs: Are illegal aliens entitled? Sure, why not. Do people have to register to get money? Of course not! just show up with your hand out. Is it open to anyone IN California? Yes, even those passing through for a year, month, week, day. Must I show state income tax statement to get my free money? Hahahaha! of course not you dope.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/california-democratic-party-platform-supports-universal-basic-income.html
YMMV
I think you're describing small scale socialism/communistic attempts and yes, they are just yet another example of this failing. Communism does not work. If you'd like to go back further in American history, the first year of the Jamestown colony is a fascinating read of socialism failing.
Some progressives want this, but socialism and communism is not synonymous with progressive. A progressive is simply someone who has a goal and wants to get people to change to meet their personal goal. My experience has been that most progressives are looking for something "better", but only as they define better. For some it IS socialism and communism, but many have other goals...a gun free society, a religion free society, universal income, a society where white males are an inferior species, etc. There are also right wing progressives, but not as many of them and they generally are not well organized.
Yes, I agree universal income is a failed idea that only an ignorant person would support.
-
"Progressive" is just a cloak for "communist".
Calling themselves communist has bad perception to it, so they use "progressive" because it evokes something positive.
-
Progressiveness today, is all about using the levers of power to force equal distribution of material gains by one segment of the population. That is exactly what the CA dem platform says. Take from those who are producers in a society, and give the fruits of their hard labor to those who would/could/choose not to contribute.
This is the fundamental goal of progressives. Use fed/state govts to determine winners and losers, and any time winners win, they must fund the lower strata of society. While concomitantly grafting off plenty of lucre on the side for themselves. If progressives want to progress, then fine - go make progress. We're not stopping you. Use your talent, skills, brains, community, whatever you want to advance your civilization. But - you must NOT be allowed to affect the lives of those who would prefer not to progress. If we want to be backward, hillbilly, mouth-breathing coal miners, or Walmart greeters, or farmers, or oil roughnecks, you need to leave us alone.
-
Progressives are utterly unable to leave producers alone.
It is due to jealousy.
There is nothing a progressive hates more than people who are self-reliant and think for themselves.
-
Progressives are utterly unable to leave producers alone.
It is due to jealousy.
There is nothing a progressive hates more than people who are self-reliant and think for themselves.
This would imply that anyone who is a producer is not a progressive?
-
This would imply that anyone who is a producer is not a progressive?
Oh, heck no. There are progressive producers. They, too, get jacked by their progressive brethren, when need arises to maintain the construct/narrative. As when they step out of line, "think for themselves" as Number 7 puts it, or leave the plantation. Progressive producers are generating a lot of boycotts these days.
-
Oh, heck no. There are progressive producers. They, too, get jacked by their progressive brethren, when need arises to maintain the construct/narrative. As when they step out of line, "think for themselves" as Number 7 puts it, or leave the plantation. Progressive producers are generating a lot of boycotts these days.
Then his statement must be wrong...or else progressives who are also producers must be jealous of themselves, hate themselves for being self-reliant and cannot think their own thoughts.
When you start piling the insults on, it doesn't really add up.
-
Then his statement must be wrong...or else progressives who are also producers must be jealous of themselves, hate themselves for being self-reliant and cannot think their own thoughts.
When you start piling the insults on, it doesn't really add up.
No. They think they are perfectly fine. They think OTHER producers that don't agree with them are the problem.
We seem to have a real communications problem here. I don't know how much of it is on purpose.
Too many people make sweeping generalizations, (me included)
and then other people blindly assume the generalizations are absolutes. This is usually just bullheadedness.
-
Then his statement must be wrong...or else progressives who are also producers must be jealous of themselves, hate themselves for being self-reliant and cannot think their own thoughts.
When you start piling the insults on, it doesn't really add up.
Just like YOU progressive producers have no trouble with the double standard that punishes non-progressive pukes. Your pathetic attack is just more proof of how utterly devoid you are of straightforward honesty and logical thought.
However you do a great job of reminding us that you pretend to be something other than the democrat progressive you are based on your words and stated beliefs.
-
Read it again, asechrest.
See bflynn's repetitive use of "without consequences?"
Freedom only works when it is balanced by responsibility.
Personal freedom, personal responsibility. I'm sure you've noted the transformation of personal responsibility into perceived victimhood, a process fueled and ignited by the left and flaccidly accepted by too many leaders on the right.
The consequences of personal choices should not be borne by others. This is a general principle which I'm sure you apply to the children of your partner, in raising them.
America's freedoms, desired by so many who come from restrictive or failed governments, stand clear and in sharp contrast to their absence in many parts of the world. Sophistries and seeming contradictions do not dim the light of freedom. We all know what it means.
That is why Trump. The leftward march was sucking America into a dark place. I've talked with many people who felt on November 9, 2016 as if they could breathe again.
The "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" are not always on distant shores.
I agree with you (surprise!).
However, I still fundamentally either don't understand, or don't agree with, the OP of this thread. For a number of reasons, not the least of which that it appears to be some sort of reductio ad absurdum, even if he had accurately pegged what Progressives want. You can do it with anything, actually -
- Gun nuts want to be free to have whatever weapons they want, without consequence. This push toward permissiveness will lead to murder and rape being permissible.
- Potheads want to be free to smoke MJ without consequence. This push toward permissiveness will lead to murder and rape being permissible.
- Etc. etc.
-
fundamentally ... don't understand
Bingo.
-
the
Bingo.
Hey, not my fault you can't reconcile your own discongruent posts. But at least you're scoring internet points!
-
It is a working theory - by breaking so many social norms, progressives have inadvertently encouraged people to break other norms. The law of unintended consequences. Broken window theory.
Thus far I have heard no reason to prove this wrong so I will continue developing it. For me at least, school shootings are a matter of a lack of self control, enabled by progressives.