"Progressive": one who gives a negative connotation to "progress".

A "progressive" is someone who is so opened minded his brains have fallen out.

Mark

Caring for other people might be something Jesus would want you to do. Would you call Him a Progressive?

Jesus was a liberal, thats why Mark hates us so much, he is constantly reminded how far he is from that higher ideal.

A person who thinks morality consists of caring, and spending other people's money on problems.

-- And a conservative doesn't spend other peoples money on problems mark? Whos money is bush spending for all these wars and tax cuts.? The difference here is that liberals spend money to try and FIX a problem, conservatives have no idea how to fix anything so they spend money to keep a problem from getting bigger. Like spending hundreds of billion on Iraq and Afganistan and passing the fixing or winning to the next president because you have no ideas how to do it.

A bit of advice to our Progressive friends; there's a real world out there in which 6 billion human beings don't want precisely what you want.

-- You should practice what you preach and stop trying to force you views on others then. I might remind you that out of 275 million people in the US, only 15-20% are like minded to you. You are a small minority, time to start acting like it rather than trying to act like a majority. You are like the green party

axis,

Last I checked, about 70% of my fellow Americans are practising Christians, just like me...

A progressive is what it is. Someone that is not experienced enough or just plain naive to know how the real world is, believes everyone is out to get them, complains incessantly about everything, holds a gloom and doom attitude 24/7, cannot wait to tell you how to think but how dare you return the favor, will kill an unborn baby at the drop of the hat but will protect a serial killer from the electric chair as if it were an innocent baby, lets pedophiles not serve prison sentences because they are too short, screams about pollution and the environment while hopping in their SUV / limo, claims racial bigotry every chance they can but refuses to recognize the reverse, screams about the rights of women but when their president rapes and sexually harrasses women is silent, and on and on and on.

A progressive is a hypocrite. The best definition of all

Canadian,

Jesus, though, didn't just care for other people - he did for them; also, he never advocated a goverment welfare program for the poor.

What, Canadian, have you done today to help out the less fortunate?

Jesus? Are you even allowed to bring that name up as a liberal in a public forum like this? Will you be beaten senseless for doing so like Union thugs do at polling places?

Jesus is neither liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat.

I can't see Jesus supporting a right to choose whether a baby lives or not.

Catholics believe that Jesus and God speak through the Pope and the Catholic church's teachings are very conservative.

Whether you are a conservative or a liberal you want to help the poor, it's just how it's done. One groups wants to give it away while another group wants to teach the person to fish for themselves and earn it.

I dare say Jesus would be pretty disappointed with both groups.

Christ was a Progressive not a Fascist. Peace

A regressive is a YOYO- Your On Your Own

A Progressive is a WINT- We're In This Together.

You really are funny, Mark.

The taxes I pay helps support the government welfare programs that gives aid to those in need. I am more than happy to pay those taxes.

It makes for a more compassionate society.

YOYO = You're On Your Own

"What, Canadian, have you done today to help out the less fortunate?"

I'd venture to say he didn't roll a grenade into someones kitchen. Does that count as being helpful or at least doing no harm?

Mark, you are funny.

The taxes I pay help support the welfare programs that provide aid to those in need. I am more than happy to pay those taxes. It makes for a more compassionate society.

70% of Americans may share your religious views, Mark, but there are others in this world who have their own beliefs which are just as valid, you will agree.

Mark, does doing "the right thing in our daily lives" include killing entire familes in "precision" strikes, or cozy up to iron fisted despots because they are willing to give us cheap oil, or perhaps it means treating healthcare as a privelege for those who can afford it, instead of the right it is?

Or...maybe it just means we are about to leave the conservative ideal of liberty and justice for those who can afford it, BEHIND us.

Third Eye....does doing the right thing in our daily lives include removing a dictator that killed up to one million people, raped women, allowed people to suffer?

Thanks...please let us know

YOYO? Not exactly. In fact I believe it's quite clear in the bible when it talks of teaching men to fish.

Even Clinton finally got it when he signed overwhelming reform legislation on Welfare.

Handouts do nothing. Just like when you feed the birds or the bears. They forget how to hunt or gather food on their own.

The most sensible thing to do and the most productive for the individual and the society is to train them and support them for a time and then release them. A total handout is not the way to go.

Third,

A right to health care? It is off topic - but where is there a God-given right to brain surgery?

Canadian,

Ah, the welfare State excuses you from further activity...thats it, keep those hands clean, Canadian...don't actually deal with the less fortunate, just care about them...

Where is the right to dental care? How about a right to a vacation? Can we have a right to a Friday afternoon nap too?

Warrior,

You have a right to whatever can be paid for by government via taxation...so, no, you don't have a right to a nap...but you do have a right to a couch to take the nap on.

Mark

:)

Last I checked, about 70% of my fellow Americans are practising Christians, just like me...

-- 70% of americans are christians mark, but they are NOT like you.

You like in a bubble world that believe that all christians think like you do. It is your narrow views on the world that is in the minority, not the fact that you are christians.

Its interesting that the liberals think that when all taxpayers are given a tax cut, its the government's money that is being "spent" on a tax cut. Actually, its our money. The tax cut means the government is not taking as much of our money.

The librals think that all the money we earn belongs to the government, and they allow us to have some of it.

As usual, 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

Even Clinton finally got it when he signed overwhelming reform legislation on Welfare.

Handouts do nothing. Just like when you feed the birds or the bears. They forget how to hunt or gather food on their own.

The most sensible thing to do and the most productive for the individual and the society is to train them and support them for a time and then release them.

-- I agree. People that are dependent on government for support must be entitled to programs and training that will help them become more self-sufficient.

I look to many of the US tribal bands, for a long time, they were dependant on the government, then the government made changes allowing them to become self governing and to put into place thigns that will help their people get trained for jobs as well as medical and dental care. Now many are not only totally self-sufficient, but they alsoe contribute Back to the community and society.

This is the welfare reform that needs to be done. If they want to continue receiving beneefits, they must be trained and eductated and then gradually weaned off.

Snide remarks aside, I've asked this same question in othe blogs.

What is the difference between a liberal and a "progressive". Is it the same as the difference between a homosexual (bad connoations) and a "gay"? I don't mean that directly and I don't mean liberals are gay. What I mean is, is progressive a new Madison Avenue word to wipe away some bad connations associated with an earlier term (liberal)? Much the same as abortion advocates became "pro-choice"?

Really, you liberals...er progressives. Can you tell us where you stand on the major issues of the day? And, well even tell us what you consider the major issues to be? Here is your chance to convert us - what do you stand for? And, do any liberals reject the term and want to still be called liberals?

Mark,

With some though to this topic, I believe that I have a better answer for you.

Progressives are ... what you are not. Your weaknesses are our strengths, your failings are our accomplishments.

1) Progressives are: tolerant of those that are different from us

Conservatives are : intolerant, bigots, racists

2) Progressives look forward; to progress as a society, to evolve into the next millenia

Conservatives want to regress...back into the stone age

3) Progressives are compassionate and enjoy helping others.

Conservatives enjoy helping themselves

4) Progressives believe that people should be treated equal.

Conservatives believe that they should be treated better than others.

5) Progressives believe that all people should be entitled to essentials, such as health care and care for the elderly.

Conservatives believe that only those that can afford it should have access to such things.

6) Progressives believe in life and individual liberities

Conservatives believe in death, killing, murder and taking in away liberities that they disagree with.

There of course are many more, but thats some of the main ones.

How sad, terribly sad you people are. You seem to believe everything is solved by force. You are definitely not your brothers keeper. Hand outs? Faggetta boutit. Christian? I really look for any resemblence to your professed faith. Forgive me, but I see you spin your faith as you do your politics. I grant you this, you have earned everything you have, nobody has given you anything.

Why, oh why do you live in such fear as men of faith. Why are your decisions fear based?

I do not want my children growing up with your values. Spy, grab, cheat, steal, lie, mine, mine, mine, MINE! I got here first, get outta the way. Hey I need it more than you do.

So you respond-"get real, it's a dog eat dog world out there. Do you want your sister raped by some islamofascist?"

WHAT?

You respond- "if someone was talking about holding a gun to your head would you shoot them first?"

WHAT?

Fear, gentlemen, fear is driving you mad.

Here's a tip for the faithfull.

Don't be so scared.

Oooohhhh the boogey man, look out!

Wow Axis and raker13. Thanks. I suspected as much. "Progressives" have no substance at all. No views other than self-agrandizement and hatred of others. Axis - thank you the most. It was soooo tolerent of Edwards to make sure the crowd new that Cheney's daught was a lesbian. It is so interesting how few blacks and hispanics the Democrats actually named to positions of power. Very telling indeed.

Do any other Progressives want to take a wack at it?

Your comparisions are excellent. Not because they are accurate, but because they show the arrorgant hate filled world you live in. Adolph Hitler himself could not have explained his position better. Not that you are a Nazi, you are just as arrogant and mis-guided as one. You named NO issues. Not one. Excellent.

Handouts do nothing.

They can be useful in the short term, but I agree in the long run they are harmful.

I wonder.

I wonder why progressives dedicated to rights of the individual:

1.Do not want the individual to have the right to bear arms. And have their Police unlawfully seize citizens arms during emergencies.
2. Think it's OK to kill an unborn child that they can't prove is not alive.
3. Want to restrict free speech with political spending limits, labeling some speech as "hateful", and imposing "speech codes" at universities.
4. Think it's OK for their - very rich - leadership to hide their money in tax dodges and trusteeships to avoid taxes (Kennedy, Kerry, and others).
5. Think its OK when their -very rich - leaders kill people while drunk driving, sexually assault employessa, and generally live a life of debauchery at public expense.
6. Think its OK when their - very rich- leaders refuse to let alternative energy windmills be built near their homes. But allow them to be built near the "poor people".
7. Want illegal immegration to continue so they can continue to pay substandard wages to illegal workers with no legal recourse. Thus effectively creating a new slave class in this country.
8. Don't believe that the individual should be able to choose to NOT belong to a Union and still work.
9. Can't see that four decades of welfare state mentality and refusal to make individuals take responsibility for themselves has resulted in the dismal inner city failure that is apparently the progressive utopia. Surely, in states and cities where Democrats have ruled for decades things should be better by now and not worse? Yet, look at L.A., New Orleans, Detroit, Philadelphia, D.C. and others? What gives? The streets should be paved with gold by now?

I also wonder why Christian and Conservative charities and civic organizations seem to so outstretch liberal ones in giving to the needy?

I wonder what is so awful about the Boy Scouts that the ACLU and many liberals hate it so much? Is it wrong that I don't want a homosexual man taking my ten year old boy camping in the woods? Is that enough to kill an organization that teaches ethics and responsibility and service on such a wide scale? Apparently so. Did you know that Hitler hated the Scouts also? He disbanded them in Germany and replaced them with the Hitler youth. Just an interesting coincidence I guess.

I wonder why you say you are for the health and welfare of all - yet cheer when the president points out you killed Social Security reform without ever offering a solution of your own.

Wallow in you hatred if you must. Shout it from the hills. It will keep you out of power.

The term "progressive" has become muddled over the years, but here is what I believe myself.

1.)Government derives its power from the electorate, and thusly does not "grant" any rights.

2.)Government and the governed act in accordance with Social Contract Theory: the governed agrees to follow certain guidelines; the government agrees to protect the rights of its citizens.

3.)Government acts based on truths that can be universally acknowledged, and, when no universal (or widespread) solution exist, Government should err on the side of granting additional rights, rather than restricting them.

4.)Preemptive war is not acceptable, and major international incursions should be limited to humanitarian crises and threats to international security. Governments should also follow all treaties to which they have signed and not redefine terms contained therein. (eg: enemy combatant vs. POW).

5.)The freer the market, the freer the people. That also means that the government should enforce the free market by preventing monopolies from forming and producers from colluding.

6.)A modest social safety net should exist for those least fortunate, but voluntary charity is better than government programs for helping the poor. Therefore, institutions, religious or otherwise, who perform public services should recieve compensation from the government. Only religious institutions that perform public services should be tax exepmt or recieve public money.

7.)Though many of our laws are derived from religious tradition (the last 6 commandments), specific religious doctrine has no place in policy.

8.)The government needs to realize that there are more costs than monetary costs when it comes to protecting or not protecting the environment. Seriously, even if people aren't causing global warming, aren't you sick of breathing in smog constantly?

9.)Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for increased security deserve neither. In the course of protecting the governed safe, the government needs to respect the individual liberties for which they are fighting.

10.)The purpose of the legal and penal system is to rehabilitate, not to punish. Retributive desire should have no part in an impartial legal system (aka: no death penalty except in the most extreme of cases).

Seems reasonable to me.

I'm a guy that works at a chemical plant. I work hard for a living. I work shift work. It is obvious that I am not college educated by my writing ability. I work hard, pay my taxes, don't steal, believe in God, an most of the time, (until you guys screwed it up) very proud to be an American.

I am Joe SixPack. I am Homer Simpson.

I am progressive. I am proud of that fact. As hard as I work for it, I can help out my bothers in need. I can believe in American ideals that truth, honesty and the American way can be and will someday again be the the ideal.

I believe we can prosper and continue to grow as a nation. We are not done yet. You people are pushing us away from that ideal.

You control the media. You control both houses. Yet, it is slipping away from you like sand in an hour glass. Still you do not modify your stance or actions. As everything crumbles around you, you find a way to justify the actions.

As a progressive, I believe more than ever, we need to grow and change again. Grow in a positive way, a way that is recognized by the world as the
beacon of true freedom, battling for human rights,
controlling gross polluters, etc.

Your way is not working, look around you. Your like caged dogs now, barking at everything and everyone around you.

As a progressive, I wish you peace.

Georgia,

Good post. Some of the items seem pretty conservative to me and not "progressive". But it must be how you define it.

One item though:

4.)Preemptive war is not acceptable, and major international incursions should be limited to humanitarian crises and threats to international security. Governments should also follow all treaties to which they have signed and not redefine terms contained therein. (eg: enemy combatant vs. POW).

While the traits you describe are valid, I'm not sure that you implied points that we don't follow them are accurate.

We followed UN resolutions to go into Iraq. Thus - followed treaty agreements. And, the terms enemy combatant and POW are actually very much legal terms. We signed the Geneva conventions - yes. But the non-uniformed, swearing allegiance to no nation people we are fighting are not accorded the same protections as a POW under those treaties. Neither are they accorded protection when they deliberately kill non-combatants and hide behind them to attack. The argument I hear from the left is along the lines that we should be better than that, Fair enough and a valid point. But under existing law and treaties, even taking one prisoner is optional and summary field execution is legal. Sorry to say it, but it's true.

I wonder how you feel about New Orleans Police seizing weapons from within peoples homes with no warrants (not that would have been legal) after Katrina? At the very time when the Police force in the area was working a skeleton crew and armed thugs were roaming the streets the liberal democrat government chose to disregard Constitutionally protected rights. Is THAT progressive?

Raker - we control the media? Give me a break. Talk radio and some commentary shows on FOX. The vast majority of print and broadcast media is card carry Democrats. This has been prove. Really, gib=ve me a break.

You have no defendable positions on any issues. Not one.

We are safer now. The Bush defence startegy is working. The Bush economy is doing fine by most any measure. Talk about fear mongering, the MSM fills you full of angst over an economy that is doing great.

YOU look around. Are you afraid you're about to be laid off? Are YOU afraid that inflation is making you paycheck worthless? Are YOU afraid that we are in immenet danger from terrorist attack? Well? Isn't that OK?

Raker - one thing though. You're right that it can't keep on thgis way. Your blind hatred of half the people in country can't continue. If we call it black, you call it white. If we call it good, then you call it bad. This is for EVERY issue. You people call us names, think you are so great - and yet offer no solutions. Your continuous disagreemnt means we don't listen to you even when you're right! Ever seen the Monty Python - argument sketch?

"We are safer now. The Bush defence startegy is working."

Nothing could be farther from the truth than this. Every day we are making more enemies around the world. Every day that goes by the Bush Admin proves how hopelessly inept they are and show they have NO idea how to get us out of this mess. Remember his allusion to the next administration having to deal with it? This is a man who has screwed up everything his daddy has given him from oil companies to baseball teams to the presidency. An utter and complete Alfred E Neuman screw up.

Ash - BULLSH*T.

Do you think that ANY nation would attack us? After seeing Sadaam in chains? NO.

Do you think that the islamic wackos would hate us less if we didn't do anything? Clinton tried that - 9/11 was the result. No more attacks here. One way to eliminate terrorism is to eliminate terrorists. Pop Pop, terrorist eliminated.

You make your point with conviction and very strong adjectives. But there are no facts, no nouns for your adjectives.

Ash - the more I read your post - the more I beleive I'll never get through the wall of blind hatred you have.

Really, you are a pathetic and small person. You throw the same crap at us over and over and if we prove you wrong, you invent more crap. THIS is the point of my posts. You people will not be allowed to lead the country without a vission, positions on real issues, and an absense of hatred. ALL I hear is hatred. That won't cut it wanker.

Kahn,

We followed UN resolutions to go into Iraq. Thus - followed treaty agreements.

-- That is inaccurate, the UN was considering sanctions and still had weapons inspectors in there, which were finding no weapons when you acted unilaterally and choose to go in. Bush told the inspectors they had 48 hours to get out before they started bombing.

And, the terms enemy combatant and POW are actually very much legal terms. We signed the Geneva conventions - yes. But the non-uniformed, swearing allegiance to no nation people we are fighting are not accorded the same protections as a POW under those treaties.

-- Also close, but not exactly accurate. You are correct on the un-uniformed enemy not fitting the definition of POW, however declaring them enemy combantants does not mean that you are able to treat them anyway you want, you are still bound to follow the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners. You are in direct violation of the Geneva convention and many in the administration can expect to be tried in the Hague for war crimes one day. Even top military analysts have said this, that allowing torture was a very, very slippery slope.

Neither are they accorded protection when they deliberately kill non-combatants and hide behind them to attack.

-- No, but they are entitled to certain rights given to them by the Geneva convention once they are taken prisoner.

But under existing law and treaties, even taking one prisoner is optional and summary field execution is legal. Sorry to say it, but it's true.

-- Only when fighting those fighting you, does not apply to unarmed civilians that are getting killed every day over there by troops. The troops think nothing of firing an RPG into a house filled with innocent people as long as there is at least one suspected insurgent inside. This is wrong, immoral and cowardly.

even tell us what you consider the major issues to be?

1) Affordable health care for everyone.
2) The overweight empidemic in America.
3) Runaway consumerism, the disposable society
4) The environment
5) Political corruption/ PAC's /
6) The sad state of education
7) Immigration
8) Fear itself.
9) Divisiveness in this country. Unresponsive President and politicians at all levels.
10) Emegency preparedness.
11) The environment / air quality
12) The environment / global warming
13) Manifest Destiny as a morally bankrupt policy.
14) Race Relations
15) Nuclear proliferation
16) The environment / energy needs
17) Me first greed

I could continue but my wife wants me to take the trash out.

Remember- you asked

Kahn-

Good points on the treaties thing; now that I look at it, I could have worded it better.

About the New Orleans thing: I don't know as if it is "progressive" (though I can see the point that you are trying to make), but I can see merit in it if martial law was declared. You had a situation where people were shooting at the national guard soldiers trying to rescue people, and there was no way to determine who they were. It could be considered an overreaction, but it really depends on the situation at the time.

Raker, neither the liberals nor the conservatives own the MSM, and thats how it should be. However, its no longer a free press because it is owned by corporations and big business that are partisan one way or another.

I believe that the MSM is laying down for this administation, both for fear of being ostracized and cut out of the loop and also so as to not appear too liberal to the conservatives

However, the administation is beginning to take a hard line approach to the media, threatening them with prison and spying on them. A slippery slope since the MSM could crush them by beginning to report on every, single dirty little secret and corruption from multiple angles.

Georgia,

Martial law was NOT declared. And, the Police went into peoples homes and took firearms. People at their own addresses. Anything can be justified if you are sure you are right. That is why the Constitution was rewritten adding the Bill of Rights. And here we have a liberal Democrat govenment ignoring rights because they were inconvenient. Where is the outrage?

Kahn-

I haven't actually heard of this until... today actually. That is a clear violation of the fourth (I think) amendment, if the situation was as you outlined it. I dunno, if you take away everyone's guns, only the criminals get to keep theirs.

Axis - you facts are incorrect. Your treaty post is just wrong. Do yourself a favor and research it again. And, your geneava convention interpretations are wrong also. Hiding behind children to shoot is a war crime. Terrorists - not belonging to a nation are NOT P.O.W.'s. In some ways, they could be seen as spies. Shooting spies is accpetable. No uniform, no nation (which means no convention signatory), no rules. I don't even think they should be taken as prisoners.

And again - your assertion that the MSM is in the administrations pocket is absurd. Maybe sometimes they don't attack them because they haven't done anything wrong? But, they have jumped on every issue - until dis-proven when they move on to the next one. Hell, they've even FABRICATED material to attack Bush.

But hey Ash,
I like your list of issues. But, what are the progressive positions on these issues? I think their is probably more agreement there than you realize.

Georgia - second and fourth amendments. And, I'm not sure they've returned them yet!

Your treaty post is just wrong. Do yourself a favor and research it again. And, your geneava convention interpretations are wrong also.

-- No they are not. Canada also does not declare prisoners taken in Afganistan as "POWs" , but also concedes 100% that with that in mind, we are still bound to follow the Geneva convention rules for treatment of prisoners.

You are taking the approach of renaming a rose to something else, figuring it will allow you to treat it like a weed.

The US cannot legally opt out of the Geneva convention. It can classify the prisoners as other than POW's, but it does not allow you to torture, murder and render prisoners to be tortured and murdered. Even Alberto Gonzalez noted in the famous "torture memos" that reclassifying the prisoners as enemy combatants will lessen the chance of being charged with war crimes, but there is still that danger.

See this for instance "Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war."

Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

Hiding behind children to shoot is a war crime. Terrorists - not belonging to a nation are NOT P.O.W.'s.

-- Correct, however I am not talking about battlefield actions, I am talking about the treament once they are taken as prisoners. They do not fit the Geneva convention's definition of POW, true, however it is up to a Hague tribunal to determine their status, not America and the Convention clearly states that until their status is determined, they must be treated in the same manner as a POW would be treated. This is the Hague conventions version of innocent until proven guilty

Shooting spies is accpetable. No uniform, no nation (which means no convention signatory), no rules.

-- This is utterly false. Even if they are unlawful combatants, it is a war crime to execute them in the manner you describe. There are most certainly rules. You cannot round them up and summarily execute them as the nazis did. That is a war crime. If they surrender, you are bound to take them prisoner and treat them with dignity. If they are fighting, then its clear that the rules of engagement applies, but not if they are not.

I don't even think they should be taken as prisoners.

-- Just as the nazis did huh? I am sure you would be glad to see this become the rule, until other nations begin executing US troops captured in battle. It has to apply in both directions.

Looky!

Another "moral" conservative republican bites the dust on bribary charges

Axis,

Careful with the Nazi comparisons - there are many "progressive" comparisons that we can make with the Nazi's. Endless propaganda, preaching hatred of it’s foes, demeaning it’s foes through denigration, Euthanasia, abortion, nationalization of resources and command & control economy, hating the Boy Scouts because they are an independent organization espousing morals service and honor, wanting to control religions and hatred of particular religions, confiscation of personal firearms, and utter arrogance are all attributes shared between Nazi’s and Progressives. They also were completely sure of their superiority and righteousness.

We CHOOSE to apply the Geneva Conventions to these prisoners, but we are not required to. Those conventions only apply BETWEEN signatories. Al-Queada is NOT a signatory. But, you think it’s OK to blow up a busload of kids, then throw up your arms and say “hey – when’s dinner I’m hungry?” Whatever, we follow the rules you spell out and not the ones I advocate anyways. Not worth arguing over. We don’t exedcute and we don’t torture. And FYI - other nations like Japan, North Korea, and North Viet Nam DID execute American troops. And Al-Queada has executed American civilians, on video, by decapitation.

But on a different note. Any positions on any of Ash’s issues list? Axis – or is it JUST hate with you?

Republicans always get up in arms about having to pay for things, you guys are way too wrapped up in your checkbooks, is there some sort of money fetish you guys buy into?

It's simple, Progressives see a butt ton of money, and want it spread around so everyone can get everything they NEED. Now im not going to tell you that people game the system, try to get more than their fair share, but that just means we need real reform and oversight, that doesn't mean you get to trash system that work at lower overhead than your silly "privatized" systems, thats why you hate Medicare, because it works, and everyone wants it! When you lie, cheat, and steal to help insure America's continued dominance as the world's "Hyperpower" the least you can do is throw us a bone every once in a while, maybe in the form of peace of mind that when our kids get sick we don't have to worry about buying groceries or getting a prescription filled...now thats progressive

Careful with the Nazi comparisons - there are many "progressive" comparisons that we can make with the Nazi's. Endless propaganda, preaching hatred of it’s foes, demeaning it’s foes through denigration, Euthanasia, abortion, nationalization of resources and command & control economy, hating the Boy Scouts because they are an independent organization espousing morals service and honor, wanting to control religions and hatred of particular religions, confiscation of personal firearms, and utter arrogance are all attributes shared between Nazi’s and Progressives. They also were completely sure of their superiority and righteousness.

-- Please. None of these are progressive ideals.

We CHOOSE to apply the Geneva Conventions to these prisoners, but we are not required to. Those conventions only apply BETWEEN signatories. Al-Queada is NOT a signatory.

-- That is the presidents OPINION, it can only be decided yes/no by a tribunal. Even if they are unlawful combatants, the Geneva convention remains in effect to the degree of guaranteeing them humane treatment and freedom from torture.

We don’t exedcute and we don’t torture.

-- Thats a lie, american torture in prisons is documented, such as in Abu Garhrib. Many more cases are before the courts alleging torture, and Gonzalez is trying to block discoveries using state secret privlige. There are ways around this roadblock they are using to hide the truth from coming out and it is underway in several cases.

other nations like Japan, North Korea, and North Viet Nam DID execute American troops. And Al-Queada has executed American civilians, on video, by decapitation.

-- And the world was in contempt and war crime charges flowed from some of them. So now you are advocating for the US to begin executing prisoners? Are you insane?

Often when I read Mark's posts and those of some of his fellow conservatives, I think back to a very insightful essay published almost 50 years ago by F.A. Hayek, entitled "Why I Am Not a Conservative". In it, he distills the mind-set of a conservative succinctly and better than anyone else I have read on the subject. Though Hayek describes himself as a liberal, he means a classical liberal, akin to a libertarian today.

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

When I read what Mark writes about the supposed constitutional "authority" of the Bush administration to break the law (in a variety of instances, not just wiretapping), I am reminded of this passage

"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."

And in Mark's pompously righteous rants against the evil incarnate that is his boogeyman version of liberalism:

"When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends."

I encourage all of you to read the entire 3 page essay. Though I consider myself a liberal and progressive, I realize that my political views probably differ significantly from others who would share the same labels. Despite those differences, I suspect that many of us share a similiar mind-set, which is the opposite of conservatism as described in Hayek's essay.

My two cents' worth on "Progressives":

A conservative will use verifiable facts; a "progressive" will call them blind assumptions.

A conservative will take action to stop the killing of hundreds of thousands; a "progressive" will appologize for doing nothing.

A conservative will make decisions based on fact and logic; a "progressive" will rely on "feelings", nothing more than "feelings".

A conservative believes that income earned belongs to those who earn it and a small portion should be given to the government to run essential functions; a "progressive" believes that income earned belongs to the government and just enough should be given back to those earned it to survive.

A conservative believes that there is evil in the world and we must confront it to deter and prevent attacks against civilized nations; a "progressive" believes that there is no evil and everyone should just "get along".

A conservative believes that there are Islamist terrorists who want to kill us; a "progressive" believes that there are no terrorists, just misunderstood freedom-fighters.

A conservative believes that our way of life is worth fighting and dying for; a "progressive" would rather run than fight and surrender than die defending our way of life.

A conservative is proud to be an American and to live in the greatest nation on earth; a "progressive" is ashamed to be an American and feels guilty about our success.

A conservative believes that only those who have committed capital offenses do not have the right to life; a "progressive" believes that only the defenseless unborn do not have the right to life.

A conserviative believes in "We Report, You Decide"; a "progressive" believes in "We Decide, You Listen".

A conservative believes that classified national security information should be kept secret; a "progressive" believes that classified national security information should be plastered all over the front pages of every newspaper, especially if it undermines the Administration.

A conservative is proud of their beliefs and title; a "progressive" is ashamed to be called a liberal, so they changed their title to avoid the negative connotations of liberalism.

A conservative believes in "Innocent, until proven Guilty" (see Libby, the Marines at Haditha, Tom Delay, etc.); a "progressive" believes in "Guilty, who cares if they're Innocent" (see Libby, the Marines at Haditha, Tom Delay, etc.).

A conservative believes that the right to life is a God-given right; a "progressive" believes that the right to an abortion is found in the Constitution, somewhere between the 30th and 50th Amendments.

A conservative believes in causing regime change in accordance with Congressional Acts is the right thing to do; a "progressive" believes that doing the right thing is worng.

A conservative believes in "speaking softly and carrying a big stick"; a "progressive" believes in "talking loudly and running for cover when the going gets tough".

A conservative believes that "Global Warming", if it actually exists, is a naturally occuring climatic cycle; a "progressive" believes that the United States has caused "Global Warming", so we must be punished by crippling our economy.

A conservative believes that threats to our national security should be confronted before they become immanent; a "progressive" believes we must be attacked first, then we do nothing, for fear of making those who attacked us mad at us.

A conservative believes that the MSM, comprised of 70%+ liberals, is biased against the Administration; a "progressive" believes that the MSM, comprised of 70% liberals, is controlled by a Conservative Administration.

A conservative knows that appeasement never works; a "progressive" thinks that appeasement worked so well with Hitler, we should try it again.

A conservative believes that information about classified national security programs should be kept from our enemies; a "progressive" doesn't care who knows about our classified national security programs as long as it undermines the Administration.

A conservative has proof that lowering taxes increases revenues and shifts more of the tax burden to the upper income earners; a "progressive" doesn't care and wants to punish the "rich" for their success by raising their taxes.

A conservative believes that humans can coexist with the environment; a "progressive" believes that plants and animals have more rights than humans.

A conservative is tolerant of moonbat liberals who live in a alternate universe, otherwise we would have had them committed; a "progressive" is a hypocrit - they claim to be tolerant, but express hatred towards all things conservative.

A conservative believes the government is doing everything legally possible to protect us from further terrorist attacks; a "progressive" believes any and all actions taken by a Conservative Administration to be illegal, and part of a "Vast Right-Winged Conspiracy".

A conservative believes in fighting Fascism; a "progressive" believes conservatives are Fascists.

A conservative believes in equal rights for all; a "progressive" believes that minorities, determined by race, ethnic origin, or religion, should have more rights than everyone else.

A conservative believes that that the Legislative Branch makes laws, the Judicial Branch interprets laws, and the Executive Branch executes and enforces laws; a "progressive" believes that the Judicial Branch should make laws, the Legislative Branch should conduct investigations, and the Executive Branch, when controlled by Republicans, should do nothing.

A conservative believes that "Supporting the Troops" means giving financial, moral, and volunteer support to those defending our freedoms; a "progressive" believes that "Supporting the Troops" means calling them murderers and torturers, akin to Pol Pot, Nazis, and the Gulags, and mindless robots.

A conservative believes that each registered voter should get one vote, and that it should be counted; a "progressive" believes that each Democrat should get two or three votes, the dead and felons should get at least one vote, and the military vote should be not counted.

A conservative believes that the best way to stop rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons is to stop rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons; a "progressive" believes that the best way to stop rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons is to give them the nuclear technology that allows them to acquire nuclear weapons. Wait. That doesn't sound right. Oh, well. If it worked with North Korea, I'm sure it will work with Iran.

A conservative believes that intercepting terrorist communications can help stop further terrorist attacks; a "progressive" believes that intercepting terrorist communications is a violation of their civil rights. Which only makes sense if they are supporting terrorists.

A conservative believes that low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, near record stock markets, record home ownership, and growing GDP is the sign of a healthy economy; a "progressive" believes all these are signs of "failed" economic policies.

A conservative believes that defending our national against further attacks is the duty of the President; a "progressive" believes that defending our national against further attacks is an impeachable offense.

A conservative believes that when business prospers, jobs are created, wages grow, and everyone benefits; a "progressive" believes that profits are evil, and no business should make money. Of course, if all businesses were failures, jobs would be lost, wages would fall, and no one would benefit. But who cares. "Big Business" would suffer, that's all that matters.

A conservative lives in the real world; a "progressive" lives in an alternate, virtual universe, 180 degrees out of phase.

A conservative believes that "Global Warming", if it actually exists, is a naturally occuring climatic cycle; a "progressive" believes that the United States has caused "Global Warming", so we must be punished by crippling our economy.

A conservative sees dirty air, polluted water, defaced natural beauty, Arctic melting as the cost of doing business. Any attempts to do something about these atrocities are attacked as "standing in the way of a free market."

A progressive sees that a clean environment is ultimately more important than money.

Progressives don't only blame the United States for polluting, China, Pakistan, Russia, India, Eastern Europeans are just as guilty. So it is not a hate American philosopy, it is a love the earth philosophy.

Wow, powerful rant A-10:

So does destroying the lives of innocent civilians for a blatant oil grab fit into your self-serving view of you and your ilk?

How about the men you raise up as captains of industry who systematically go about subverting and subjugating innocent people who were unfortunately not born into the richest and most powerful nation in the world's history?

24,000 people die each day of hunger, while we outspend every nation in the world combined on military expenditures, who exactly are you guys so afraid of...this week?

You keep claiming that all these bad liberals are ruining the country for you good christian folks, and forget this country belongs to the crazies, and the normals, the plains and the arrogant, the vice-filled hypocrites and the pious, unheralded do-gooders, the gay, the straight, the flamboyant, and the meek, YOU are not any more special than anyone else, and your morals and view about how you see the world doesn't make it any more right just because you and some of your war buddies have rhetorical circle jerks while finding communists behind every coffee bar. You may be paranoid but we love you just the same, the world wouldn't be as interesting without the freaks like you.

Wow A-10. I see you spent all night on that contribution.

The more time I spend here, the more and more convinced that conservative ideals are a problem with the brains of some people as the studies show.

I am confident though that will the miracle of modern medicine, we may soon see a drug that will cure that ailment that afflicts you all, returning your brain to the correct chemical balance and restoring the liberal views that you were intended to have.

axis,

I'm still waiting for your reply over on the The 108-Year Old "Temporary" Tax thread. The part where you are mathematically challenged.

Third Eye Open,

That wasn't a "rant", just a comparison between conservatives and "progressives". A "rant" is what a "progressive" does about everything conservative.

Such as: "So does destroying the lives of innocent civilians for a blatant oil grab fit into your self-serving view of you and your ilk?" That is a "rant".

So saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis from the Baathists and Saddamites wasn't justified? And what about the "oil grab"? I hear that they are pumping the Iraq oil directly into Exxon's, Mobile's, and Chevron's tankers and shipping it directly to the US. That why the gas prices are so low. We've "grabbed" the oil and ran. No, wait. Un-leaded is $2.85 down the street. What went wrong. Weren't the gas prices supposed to go down when we "grabbed" all that Iraqi oil.

"24,000 people die each day of hunger, while we outspend every nation in the world combined on military expenditures, who exactly are you guys so afraid of...this week?"

What a wonderful non-sequitur. Unfortunately, for you, you're wrong again. The rest of the World outspent the US in military expenditures (based on 2004 estimates) And that's taking into consideration that we pay our military personnel several times more per individual than any other country. Plus, they are equipped and trained better. If all of the other countries kept the same size military, but paid, trained, and equipped their military at the level we do, their expenditures would be double of triple our.

"You keep claiming that all these bad liberals are ruining the country for you good christian folks..."

Talk about a rant. I'm not claiming all you bad liberals are ruining the country for us. I'm just saying that you have been on the worng side of history for decades. I'm sure some liberal, oops, "progressive", policies are well thought out and beneficial. I just don't know what they are.

Finally, I'm not "paranoid" at all. I don't think that there's a "Vast Right-Winged Conspiracy", or that FEMA is building concentration camps for all of the liberals, er, "progressives", or that the President is going to suspend the Constitution and Congress and declare Martial Law. Those are all the paranoid delusions of your friends on the looney left.

"Third Eye....does doing the right thing in our daily lives include removing a dictator that killed up to one million people, raped women, allowed people to suffer?

Thanks...please let us know"

Warriornation let me school ya!!
It was a conservative US administration that gave Saddam the weapons and the technology and the go ahead to commit these acts in the first place. Don't forget he was our buddy in the war on the commies. Then after he commits these horrible deeds they send Don" I never said that" Rumsfeld to meet with the scumbag and shake his bloody hand???!!!
You know It never ceases to amaze, that upright, uptight satisfaction conservatives give themselves by saying it was the right thing to do taking over that country.........Like they with their white hats held high ,personally rode in on there horses ,guns blazen to return the world to a moral center. LOL , LMAO OH and people say you conservatives have no sense of irony or humor. Well you proved us wrong again.

A-10:

Ive got a test to get to so ill break you down later, but for the time being, let me ask you how you assume your anecdotes and personal views about how liberals/progressives "are" is anything more than just that, YOUR thoughts on things, a comparison contains fact, of which there are non, just alot of assumptions and feelings.

A progressive is a liberal who's tired of being called a liberal. A Neo-Marxist. A commie. A kook...

Leftorium,
Your post contains the liberal lie! We did not, at any time sell, give or levitate weapons or technology to Iraq. Saddam was not involved in any war or action as an ally against commies.
Michael Moore lied to you. There goes your whole conspiratorial reason for living.
Helicopters and trucks.
Progressive, valiantly holding on to your paranoia long after it's been debunked.

Bane,

you can keep repeating your conservative lies about what infact we did do with and for Sadaam, but i've already smacked you around enough for one evening about it, although I dont think youll ever learn so im sure we will fight this out again when your goldfish-like memory fades, in the meantime you can re-read your silly assertations at: http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/007232.html#comments

Helicopters and Trucks.
Here's my favorite "smackdown"
Another blind eye wrote, "so its ok to sell transport vehicles to madmen and mass murderers, just as long as they dont have weapons on them..."
Oh trucks! Maybe he was using them to park illegally in Iran!

A-10,

honestly, you rambled on so much without actually saying anything with any rhetorical weight, that im not giong to respond to all of it, im sorry if this leaves you fealing like you got shortchanged, but its the weekend, and there is beer to drink, and somewhere in the world there is a hockey-game being played.

1. You claim conservatives use facts, care to provide some facts about your facts?

2. You claim conservatives ride in just in the nick-of-time to save the day, I think the fact you guys continued to back Osama and the Taliban right up to 9/11 kinda makes your suggestion of spreading freedom like Vegimite over the toast that is the world, kinda laughable, youve done a bang-up job in managing to bring Afghanistan back into outright conflict, brought Iraq into a civil war, and spread our forces so thin, that the poor folks in Darfur (who unfortunately dont have much oil) S.O.L. Darn fine job there, bucko

3. You claim we wanna steal conservatives money, Damn straight we do, if you build a hyper-economy on the backs of the poor and middle class, you're gonna pay for us when we get sick and when we wanna make sure our kids get a great education, without ending up in mountainous debt.

4. Conservatives claim they wanna protect us by side-stepping our national morals, youre doing a great job on that one, apparently our international obligations to not torture people doesn't mean much in ya'lls personal vendettas, but to the other 2/3rds of the country who still feels like sticking to the foundations that made this country great are sending you some pink slips.

5. Liberals believe that one country doesn't have any right to decide which regimes do or don't have the right to exist. We have international laws for reasons, countries who lie themselves into war are called "rouge". Maybe Hitler thought Poland was about to attack him, or he was trying to spread freedom, or whatever opaque excuse you putz' are using this week.

I'm tired and my beer is getting warm, so have a wonderful weekend sir, and don't go blowing up anymore brown people while im gone, y'know in the name of conservatism.

Bane,

Just can't get enough can ya. Explain to me how its morally justified to sell equipment we KNOW can have dual uses to a country who is breaking international law, and OUR OWN LAWS by using WMDs against people, the fact you sell a known murderer a gun and then tell him to go across the street to get the bullets so your conscience can be clear is squishy morals if I've ever seen em.

A-10,

I totally forgot my promise to rebut your earlier post, sorry man, got caught up in watching the game.

1. It was a great idea to free the people of Iraq from Saddam, but lying your way into war is wrong...where are the WMDs...I can almost see freedom between the smoking carcas of the latest carbomb or razed city where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are displaced and seeding an endless war between civilizations, great job man!

2. oil grab: Its a long discussion, but ill post the link, and give you the nutshell. The iraqi constitution was supposed to be a clean start, something free of any semblance of their violent history, a way for them to assert their sovereignty all over again, its a veey well thought out constitution, which many brave americans in the foreign service slaved for, aswell as marines and grunts on the ground paid dearly for.
one problem is that we added a little addendum, the "100 orders". Now i'm gonna leave you with a quote, im sorry I got lazy here, but the quote has source-marks, and ill find a source for the whole 100 orders left by Bremmer, and you can punch holes at will.

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/#Orders

So, as you can see, we left them with a great deal to be desired, and when this information becomes widely known, it will be all the more apparent (as if it wasnt already in the rest of the world) to americans, that this was a war about resources, and not about freedoms...unless we are talking about freedom for american companies to war-profiteer from the rebuilding of a country we single handedly destroyed.

lastly, if you dont think that Der Leader's roll back of civil rights is creeping towards martial law, you're crazier than KosKids, because last I checked my government was supposed to assume I am a law abiding citizen, and not have to check my records or go casting nets wider than Pamela Anderson's ass to justify someone's pet project in the CIA.

Third Eye,

I wasn't being rhetorical, I was stating things as I see them.

"1. You claim conservatives use facts, care to provide some facts about your facts?"

You should visit the 108-Year Old "Temporary" Tax thread. Your buddy "axis" believes that the top 10% wage earners in the US make between $10-$100 million a year. I pointed out the facts from the IRS web site that the floor for the top 10% is around $94,000. He also thinks that the top% pay virtually no taxes, when actually they pay about 66% of the total tax burden.

He then claimed that President Bush was trying to fire Air Traffic Controllers who are only making $35,000 and replace them with ones being paid only $7.50 an hour. The facts are that the average Air Traffic Controller makes about %105,00 per year.

You see, I was dealing with facts. "Axis" was making up claims out of thin air, then he accused me of the same.

"2. You claim conservatives ride in just in the nick-of-time to save the day.."

I'm sorry, but I don't remember ever posting anything remotely related to "riding in to save the day". I did post that conservatives will act, as we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, while "progressives" will apologize for their inaction, as President Clinton did in 1998 about Rwanda.

"the fact you guys continued to back Osama and the Taliban right up to 9/11".

Totally false. While we backed the Mujahideen in their fight against Soviet occupation, we never supported the Taliban. In fact, we blocked their attempt to assume Afghanistan's seat in the UN.

As far as OBL is concerned, he has been a wanted man by the US since the Mid 90's. He was placed on the FBI Most Wanted List in 1998, and he still remains on that list, as well as on the Most Wanted Terrorist List. Hardly support by "us guys".

Why do you liberals, progressives, or whatever you call yourselves, continue to lie about things that are easily fact checked?

"3. You claim we wanna steal conservatives money"

Once again, I made no such claim.

"Conservatives claim they wanna protect us by side-stepping our national morals"

Give me a quote of one conservative who claims they want to side-step national morals. Such as protecting the unborn, safeguarding Americans against harm from terrorists, or adhering to Oaths of secrecy. These are some "national morals" conservatives believe in that "progressives" throw in the garbage.

"5. Liberals believe that one country doesn't have any right to decide which regimes do or don't have the right to exist."

But I thought you guys worshipped organizations like the UN. The same UN that passed resolutions that warned of consequences if Iraq failed to comply with the Ceasefire and preceeding resolutions.

I also like your apology for Hitler for invading Poland.

You might want to check your tin-foil hat for leaks. You're sounding a bit looney.

A-10,

I know you're never gonna change your mind, and i'm not going to conceed any of these points, so ill keep them short.

1. Axis, while well meaning pulled numbers out of someone's rear-entrance point, so be it, we all get excited sometimes, ill admit to not fact checking EVERYTHING I post on a blog, and I can take a whoopin when im told im wrong and there are facts to bac