The Progressive Agenda

theiioftx

theiioftx

Sponsor Deputy
Listening to Lefty radio yesterday, the host outlined the following as top issues for Obama and the progressive movement:

1) Gun control
2) Gay marriage
3) Legalization of marijuana
4) Immigration reform to allow citizenship to all people here illegally
5) Protection of entitlements

So basically, not follow the constitution, legalize narcotics, allow more people to get a free ride from the government. No thought to addressing the national debt, just increasing it? We are headed for collapse if the democrats take over the House in 2014.
 
I would not call legalization of pot a liberal or progressive agenda item. Yes, its true that many liberals support legalization of pot but probably only because they are potheads. I support legalization of pot because we do not need the government to be our nanny. Also, prohibition has lined the pockets of the cartel with cash for too long.
 
That sounds about right, except you left out the Environmental agenda, protecting Mother Earth from the evils of man-made global warming.

Obama kept saying "collectively" in his inaugural speech. That means BIG government and lots of it.

Since they don't want to cut anything other than defense, they are going to have to try to raise taxes tremendously or increase Obama's annual 1+ trillion dollar deficit by even more.
 
I am really torn on the legalization of pot issue. Taxing it would definitely help, but I think it will lead to more underage use and large socio-economic problems. I have seen first hand the effects of marijuana on a family member. Yes, I have seen even worse with alcohol, but not sure legalizing pot makes it better.
 
The progressive agenda has the same fundamental characteristics of other agendas.

1. Freedom to do what they like and approve.
2. Denial of Freedom to do things they don't like.
3. Use of government to enforce this.
 
Topics that should never be the affairs of a national/central government.

Only of the states. Otherwise we're no different than Iran and any other state-run society.

We need less central government, which began the madness a hundred years ago after the turn of the 19th c.
 
The main reason for illegal immigration is the jobs available and most of the traitors hiring illegal aliens are not progressives but rather are conservative republican businessmen. Do Progressives own the restaurants, the construction companies, the slaughterhouses, etc?

I think not.

Have you noticed the border patrol never seems to go after the employers?

Instead, we spend jillions trying to catch and deport the poor people sneaking in to work for the nice folks. As Bill Clements said, "we need these people,"

Progressives have their own varied reasons for supporting open immigration and other types of immigration but the main support for it has always been from the business community, which loves cheap labor that can't complain.
 
A gripping read from a chapter/article in the (Kindle) book, "Failure of the Global Socialist Experiment."It's from a 2009 article, 'Why Are They So Ruthless,' by Richard Maybury, author of 'Whatever Happened to Justice?' In reply to:
 
Hu_Fan, would you label God as a republican, democrat, communist, socialist, capitalist, or what?

According to Corithians 10:33: "even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved."

That sounds mightily like a socialist no?

The bible also says it is ok to own slaves, are you ok with that too?

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. "

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:

"Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life."
 
I didn't mean to infringe on your beliefs Hu_Fan by any means, I too respect the sentiment of "to each his own".

What I find comical and honestly hypocritical is the way all these so called "Christians" conduct themselves.

I was raised a Catholic, but as I began to learn and actually read the bible, I began to questioned many things, an example is what I pointed out to you about slavery being accepted in the bible.

I sincerely enjoy some of the teachings of Christianity, it teaches great moral and ethical values, but to be a "true" Christian, I don't think I can be one. Because well...the bible is often times a giant book of hypocrisy.
 
///
Your post says I'm more on the same page with you than either of us may have thought. I misread your post and intent of it. And you did not offend, I just though I'd gotten into something more complex than intended.

On this and any board I go very carefully in talking about religion or religious connotations, especially that tied to Western traditions. I grew up in it, but like to think I can see things with wider circles, or spheres, that often is not easy to talk about. Put in everyday talk, "I hear you.'
 
I hear ya
biggrin.gif


I guess to put it plainly, I'm consecrated but not devout.
 
So I get why YOU may have considered yourself to be a hypocritical Christian, but I'm not seeing how you get to apply it to Christians in general as you clearly are trying to do.

Reading a couple of passages and thinking you don't like them doesn't amount to "studying" and our comments so far certainly doesn't show much understanding of Christianity.
 
Y'all are a lil late to the ball here. This is becoming a feature for the rw.
wink.gif

There have been certain fundamental political shifts that have happened recently:

1. The Reagan revolution of govt being the problems is OVER.

2. This is the Obama ERA. Progressive values are the dominant force.

3. The Obama Gift: Hillary Clinton is now the most powerful potential democratic presidential candidate. And it was because Obama, after defeating her, made her his SOS, and she excelled and elevated her profile.

4. The country is FUNDAMENTALLY moved to the center-left.

5. Democrats WILL take over the congress in 2014.

6. There is a very REAL possibility of the repubs ceasing to exist in their current form. And morphing into two distinct groups - the Chris Christie type of moderates and then the radical hard rw'ers ala the Canadian Quebeccois (sp).
hookem.gif
 
I think PJ O'Rourke sums it up best:

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.
 
I think as I want to think. Unfortunately for your political affiliation, you cannot legislate to force me into your beliefs. Are you actually pushing now to restrict religious beliefs?
 
Legalization of marijuana is a liberal agenda item?

Hell, it's as conservative as can be.

It's hilarious that so many people who claim to be conservatives have no clue as to what being a conservative actually means. They've conflated it with being a Republican.

By the way, got a call from a friend who is skiing in Colorado right now and he said folks were smoking pot in public in the lift lines and nobody cared.
 
The OP stated what was the Progressive agenda - not the Conservative agenda or Republican agenda.

You are excited people are openly smoking dope in the ski lift lines? Color me no more excited about this than I would be for people drinking beer or whiskey in the line. Could care less about which party claims it as their agenda...Just amazed that Progressives have it as top of their agenda versus issues that truly affect our future.
 
A part of the move to center left, an early action to disarm the populace.

Senator Feinstein's list of 157 firearms in her new legislation. Would it be correct to assume anyone owning any of these at present is an enemy of the state?

The Link

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
^^^ It is interesting. It use to be legal to own an automatic with an approval letter from the chief of police. Now that they are registered, however, the police know who has them. And if the police want to confiscate them, it would be pretty easy to do. Just make a law that if you don't turn in your automatic, you will be subject to million dollar taxes. The commerce clause probably makes this possible. Then just make it so the automatics can't be passed on from generation to generation.

Now follow the same path with assault looking weapons. Then figure out a way to attack handguns.

The question is how long will people be willing to put up with government encroachment of rights. Will state's rights again come to the forefront and allow individual states to have rights not guaranteed under the Constitution? Will people revolt at some point or just acquiesce to the federal government's decision?
 
///
Good questions, same as I would ask.

I thought of this also. Ex-military personnel getting out of the service -- how are they going to look at the idea that they can't have a semi-automatic rifle? Their oath of service was to defend the Constitution, and they will have already made the sacrifice and put themselves in harm's way to defend that Constitution and most likely will have come back home either wounded or witnessed the worst for others.

And for that they are told, "Listen you little baby, you can't be trusted with a semi-automatic Ruger Ranch mini-14 firearm."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top