Yep. And staying the same is a loss to progressives.
Essentially progressives always want to improve the situation for somebody somewhere, and conservatives think it can’t get better for anyone anywhere.
What a world.
Yes, we just want to be left alone.
I don’t need government to be my daddy.
7 Likes
Progressives love poor people so much they’ve done their best to create as many as they can for the last 50 years.
5 Likes
They have done a great job with large cities and crime. Gotham must be their model.
1 Like
Just know that many times “Yesterday’s solutions become today’s problems.”
And to not evolve is to die.
Progressives push conservatives to change for the better, and conservatives rein in overzealous progressive change. Balance is achieved by seesawing, or by compromise.
Some things should never be changed or compromised on though.
That is where the hatred comes from both sides I think.
We normally do more devolving than evolving.
1 Like
Progressives had some great ideas that helped get kids out of coal mines and into schools. Ralph Nader even had some good consumer advocacy ideas.
Since then, aside from a few fringe issues here and there, I can’t think of very many significant progressive policy pushes that have changed anything for the better. I can think of many that changed things for the worse.
The problem is that progressives, in their enlightened progressiveness, have difficulty coming to terms with the notion that horrible human outcomes have followed their ostensibly well-intentioned policy implementation. That’s how you somehow get generations of one-party progressive governance in places like Chicago, with more problems than any other part of the country, with progressives still insisting that electing more progressives is how to get out of the hole that progressives dug over generations.
Chicago would be a failed government if not for state and federal-level bailouts.
4 Likes
Is it not already a failed government? I dunno…
I mean it would be bankrupt, unable to pay its employees or pension-holders.
Luckily for government, it is nothing like a business and can simply take more money from people no matter how incompetent, provided people continue to vote for this.
2 Likes
Thanks.
Did a bit searching online about the meaning of this quote and it’s context, and it doesn’t seem to imply what many say it does.
Here’s a snippet of one person’s analysis
"The “essential Liberty” that Franklin speaks of in this quote is the Philadelphia Assembly’s liberty to levy taxes for the purpose of protecting the frontier. The “little temporary Safety” that he speaks of is the promise from the governor that the frontier would be sufficiently protected without the Assembly taxing the lands of the Penn family.
In other words, Franklin was not trying to create a dichotomy between freedom and security, but rather trying to argue back against the governor of Pennsylvania’s accusation that the members of the Assembly were unnecessarily delaying the funding for the protection of the frontier. Basically, Benjamin Franklin was really saying that the Assembly should not have to sacrifice its power to levy taxes just so that the bill to fund protection for the frontier could be passed sooner."
1 Like
That is fair. Stemming from begged questions from the personal autonomy arguments, are things like term limits. If we say that it is legal to terminate a pregnancy, at a certain point a fetus should not be killed if the pregnancy is to be terminated, just removed (this allows for rights of personal autonomy without infringing upon right to life). This is just a guess, I don’t know what the SCOTUS was thinking at the time.
IMO, it would have been better for them to say it is legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy and leave stuff like that out for others to figure out. If they would have done that, allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time, then at viability they could have it removed and put on life support (basically nobody would do this, as most people don’t want the child), or before viability, humanly as possible (balance between the mother and child kill the child and remove it).
1 Like
I disagree. But, judging from previous posts, we might have different takes on what constitutes de/evolution.
The devolving I see is usually a flash in the pan, quickly rectified, and usually the product of strong scared or angry emotions.
They should have struck down the Texas law and that is it. The rest should have been left up to the States and/or Congress.
That is where we are now 50 years later.
1 Like
I admit that “devolve” as I use it is a made up definition. I might use it to describe the means that ultimately yields a less than desirable result as in a combination of “devil” and “evolve.” But usually in Bible related discussions. Sorry for introducing it here.
I don’t know where you came up with your definition.
The commonly accepted usage in american society?
Which dictionary?
Though your definition has a component of the combination of “devil” and “evolve.”
I’m thinking synonymous with going backward, or degenerating… in the context of Darwinian evolution. It could very easily be taken as federal power devolving to state power, etc in this context though. Tricky word, there lol.
I think progressivism in 2022 America is synonymous with narcissism and greed at the top, meaning the actual politicians and whatever passes for the intellectual class of policy advocates. I struggle to find other explanations when I think about otherwise intelligent people who have beclowned themselves by parroting nonsense DNC talking points that can’t hold up to basic levels of scrutiny. I’m looking at you, Colbert.
Here’s a fun side-question for any liberals. Who are your top 3 modern liberal intellectuals and/or thought leaders? Who best advocates for policies and ideas you can get behind?
Of course, not all Democrat voters are short-sighted narcissists intent on self-congratulation as a basis for their policy positions. There’s also what I call the good Democrats. I was one of these guys for a really long time. We are the apathetic, uninterested, uninformed but well-intentioned people who think they’re doing the right thing by voting Democrat. We believe this because we know other people who are just like us and we let ourselves get pulled along by the sociocultural currents that seem compelling to our still-forming young minds.
I never particularly liked the liberalism is a mental disorder argument, but there seems to be a growing overlap from what I can observe in recent years. The notion that young children ought to be informed about left-wing gender theory as part of public school curriculum stands out to me as a particularly warped idea. The liberal reliance on vague euphemisms to portray their arguments and the avoidance of discussing anything in clear terms is, to me at least, a very clear indicator of extremely weak ideas.
On the plus side, in 2022 you know you’ve won the argument if a liberal calls you a racist or a homophobe. Or, to keep the thread on-topic, you know you’ve won if the angry liberal mob arrives at your actual doorstep, shouting their hollow slogans bereft of thought or meaningful legal insight.
4 Likes