- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
"The belief that you can get something for nothing ... that you can get the government to take something by force from other people and give it to you, like the money for your healthcare, for example. Has been tried many, many times before and has failed everytime."
I gather he wasn't talking about George Bush forcing Democracy onto the Iraqi people or Mitt Romney passing the same healthcare plan in Massechussetts?
So the Tea Party is for those then?He certainly wasn't talking about the New Deal, the Great Society and Obamacare.
So Tea Partiers hate big government. They don't admit they get ecstatic about the thought of big religion replacing it..........
"Proving/showing" a fundamental principle like natural right exists is the same basic task as proving/showing that God exists. There is nothing concrete that can "prove" its existence. It is either believed or it's not.
For those who do not believe in any sort of natural/inalienable rights, government is God, as it is considered infallible, and the individual is amoral.
IOW, it is unprovable and can only be accepted as a matter of faith.
Too bad (for you) our government is not bound by your religious beliefs.
this agnostic is trying to understand your point
My point is the Tea Party, and conservatives are very vocal about what they are against, but they become, of necessity, evasive about what they like, because they aren't for freedom, they are just against anyone running the show but themselves........................
My point is the Tea Party, and conservatives are very vocal about what they are against, but they become, of necessity, evasive about what they like, because they aren't for freedom, they are just against anyone running the show but themselves........................
While your beliefs may be a "natural" right (if you prefer "inalienable" it doesn't matter), acting on those beliefs is not. Previously, I left it off the list of "natural" rights but I'll have to think about it some more.That doesn't mean it's not an inalienable right. That just means there are some countries which suppress certain inalienable rights, such as the example you offer.
And I don't know about you, but I'm in the U.S. where I'm free to exercise my religion without worries of government interference because that is an inalienable right and the U.S. respects that.
I don't think the Tea Party wants anything except smaller government that's fiscally responsible.
the ones I know are about freedom. YMMV
Is that why they carried all those signs saying "Keep your govt hands off my Medicare"?
This is a bit over the top. Progressivism equals communism and mass murdering? Getting something for nothing from the government? No. He's got the main points of conservatism right I would say, but everything else is a bit silly.
When I saw a couple Tea Party people on the news, even the smarter ones were coming out with nonsensical statements...........................
If a party is defined by the intelligence of who votes for it then the Democratic party is realllyyyyyyyyyy in trouble.......
Gee, aren't you the poster who started a thread complaining about posters who engage in name-calling instead of civil debate?
I didn't know your thread was so self-referential
If a party is defined by the intelligence of who votes for it then the Democratic party is realllyyyyyyyyyy in trouble.......
Then we are talking about different versions. Progressivism tends to favor greater government intervention in daily life, which leads to socialism, which, according to Marx, is only a step towards communism.
If a party is defined by the intelligence of who votes for it then the Democratic party is realllyyyyyyyyyy in trouble.......
According to Marx Communism is a step towards Socialism not the other way around.
Progressivism doesn't necessarily lead to socialism the same way that libertarianism doesn't necessarily lead to Anarchy. We both know that these don't automatically lead to their extreme's
A great book which describes progressivism fairly well is called the "Politics of Hope" by Johnathan Sacks I highly suggest reading it.
Amazon.com: politics of hope
Something tells me alot of the rancor I hear coming from the Right these days is actually frustration arising from the inability to dupe anyone beyond the base...........................
Strange, what makes you think we are the ones who are being duped?
huh? No, socialism was a step to communism. Communism to Marx was the ultimate classless, moneyless society where everyone voluntarily produces what they can and consume what they need. It was the transition from "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Communism was the final stage to Marx.
Progressivism may not ultimately lead to socialism, but they both share common roots and ideal principles. I sincerely never believe Rush or Beck or any of those nutcases when they said that the liberals were just Marxist lovers and socialists. But when I actually read up on Marx and some of his theories, I was quite shocked at just how similar his theories are to modern day left-wing politics, even if it modern liberals have watered it down somewhat.
Strange, what makes you think we are the ones who are being duped?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?