14
   

How do you self-indentify in terms of ideology?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 11:47 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You're making the common mistake of thinking you know what you're talking about. Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, most Americans thought he did. So much for thinking for yourself. It's something you've yet to master.


Stop pretending I should have the capacity to think like you. I can be a blithering idiot, but that is fine, since I would still be a blithering idiot in the U.S., not across the pond. I am not trying to proselytize my position to you; however, you might be trying to proselytize your position to me?

My point is simple. The U.S. got rid of Saddam. It's a done deal, whether anyone likes it or not. Now you want others to have remorse? Or, shame? Or, admit it might have been wrong? You are funny, in my opinion, since you are acting like it is your mission to assign contrition on the invasion. Silly boychick; the U.S. does not need to get into a confessional with anyone, least of all a Brit., in my opinion of course.

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 11:51 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I'm not acting superior, you're acting dumb.

Actually I don't think it's an act, but if it is, it's a bloody good one.


Well, if I am "acting" dumb, you are quite hot around the color for either my act, or I might be dumb, so why the umbrage? Stop assigning intelligence to me, if I do not have it. Perchance to be a dummy.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 12:00 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Fluff, like BillRM, tries to wrap himself in the American flag whenever he gets an opportunity. He may be a tedious little tit with no mates, but at least he's an American tedious little tit with no mates.




You can discern all that from your vantage point in the U.K.? You might not know how the heartland of the U.S. thinks. Notice that the majority of the posters on these political threads, in my opinion, seem to be lapsed Catholics. Quite nice; however, the U.S. is still a Protestant country, and they more often than not, ignore opposing views, since they are a majority that has no need to promulgate their thinking.

You are living, in my opinion, with the false assumption that the U.S. is really a country with many people like you. Only in urban America, or some liberal universities. The rest (of the heartland) is often mega-churches, or mainstream Protestant churches, with bible believing good folk.

That be the reality, bro!
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 04:24 pm
@Foofie,
Your point has changed, originally you were claiming that Americans were intrinsically better at thinking for themselves than Europeans. Since you can no longer defend that point you've made up another.

That's about par for the course.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 06:16 pm
@Foofie,
izzythepush wrote:
Fluff, like BillRM, tries to wrap himself in the American flag whenever he gets an opportunity. He may be a tedious little tit with no mates, but at least he's an American tedious little tit with no mates.
Foofie wrote:

You can discern all that from your vantage point in the U.K.?
You might not know how the heartland of the U.S. thinks.
Notice that the majority of the posters on these political threads,
in my opinion, seem to be lapsed Catholics. Quite nice; however,
the U.S. is still a Protestant country, and they more often than not,
ignore opposing views, since they are a majority that has no need
to promulgate their thinking. . . .
I believe that. Yes.
I consider myself to be a Protestant.
I 've been impressed with the testimony
of people who have returned from human death
in hospitals, qua their ex-carnate adventures
while thay had no EKG, no EEG, and no respiration in those hospitals.





David
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 02:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David there is no need to implore.

My point has nothing to do with whether you, under any circumstances, can be accurately described as a progressive, .
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 02:26 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You've never seen anyone, other than David, self describe themselves as Progressive?


correct

it is not a term used on its own to describe any Canadian political position

the closest was the former Progressive Conservative party (in Canada, PC has traditionally stood for Progressive Conservative - always funny to see it have such a different meaning in the US)


There are people in this forum (other than David) who have, but perhaps you missed all of those posts.

Remember blatham? He was/is a proud progressive and may even have been Canadian.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 02:31 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
..assuming you really know what it means to be a social-democrat. I'm giving you credit that you do.
Indeed. I do.


Good, then perhaps you will give me credit for recognizing that I fundamentally disgree with you on numerous ideoligical matters, and therefore can safely assume I am not a "social-democrat."

Now of course you may know perfectly well what a social-democrat is but not be a very good one yourself, and therefore my logical conclusion may be flawed, but I'm guessing that you consider yourself, at least generally, an adherent of the ideology.


Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 02:38 pm
I apologize for seemingly reaching back in this thread and responding to days old posts. I've found that I can only respond, at one sitting, to three or four before the hamster accuses me of flooding the thread, and I'm afraid I don't care to wait the mandatory 9 minutes and 45 seconds or so before the gate is again opened.

I do, however, feel as though I should respond to those folks who have taken the time to seriously answer the question I've posed and so I will (given the forum's restraints) do so.

I use the "Quote" function sparingly but will on those past posts to which I reply.

Thank you all for participating.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 02:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Now of course you may know perfectly well what a social-democrat is but not be a very good one yourself, and therefore my logical conclusion may be flawed, but I'm guessing that you consider yourself, at least generally, an adherent of the ideology.
I really have some slightly different opinions on various points of our German Social Democratic Party's current program. (For instance, I will vote against forming a coalition with the CDU/CSU ... knowing that I'll belong to a minority) I am an adherent of the ideology as approved by the Socialist International in 1989 (DECLARATION of PRINCIPLES)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 02:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Now of course you may know perfectly well what a social-democrat is but not be a very good one yourself, ...
I'm indeed not as centrist as the Social Democrats are nowadays. Therefore I've joined the Fabian Society ...
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 03:03 pm
zen socialist. I believe that the individual is the basis for all action, that individuals tend to be more good than bad, that collective consent must be obtained for all major actions. The collective can choose to act through government or by some other organization scheme, so the government only has the power that the people have bestowed upon it. this power can be removed at any time for any reason. individual wealth and/or power over the collective only remains so long as the collective consents, and this consent can be removed at any time for any reason. a zen socialist should always be striving for understanding and truth, and will be often found arguing ideas since the collective must be convinced of the need for action and consent too it before action is taken. manipulation or abuse of individuals by others or by the government is a high crime, and should come with grave consequences.

neither major party represents me, the closest identified group to my ideology are the libertarians, though their tendency to not care about the health of the collective and their passion for greed are highly offensive to me.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 03:16 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
To me a major tenant of Progressivism is the idea that a strong federal government managed by perceived subject experts (or simply highly educated people) is preferable to a greatly de-centralized government in which those who govern locally are probably selected for reasons other than subject matter expertise. It seems clear that Obama is a progressive in this sense.


This is not what I think of when I think of Progressive. I agree that this definition fits your view of Obama pretty well.

Progressivism is linked with social reform (i.e. progress). This includes issues of equality, race and gender, civil rights and poverty. This doesn't necessarily mean strong federal government (reform on social issues often happens locally).

Obama has turned out to be fairly weak in terms of progressive issues from drone strikes to immigration enforcement. Obamacare is not very progressive either, it is a centrist law far to the right of single payer. He didn't even get the public option.

Obama is governing as a centrist.



Well, we disagree on the definition of progressive which is not surprising, and it is difficult to nail down an acceptable definition of any of these terms, however I think you are well off the mark.

Progressivism as a political movement was born in an age of great advances in scientific knowledge. It is a very post-modern ideology that values a learned scientific basis to policy. The so-called social-sciences are born from the same womb as multi-birth siblings of the Progressive Movement.

It is for this reason that (as Thomas noted) early Progressives favored eugenics.

As for federalism and progressivism (in America) we need only look to those Progressive Heroes, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson.

We do agree that progressivism, at least in the past, was highly focused on reform, and that economic equality was a key concern, however the progressive solution to plutocratic monopolies was not a populist brand of decentralized power, it was to trust in learned technocrats to care for the citizens who didn't have the smarts to know what was good for them.

In this vein, Obama is pure progressive. What president has had so many "Czars?" What president has spent more time lecturing? His take on the American people is that in the main they are largely an uneducated and unruly lot who need the sure guiding hand of someone in the know. Progressivism is elitism and who is more of an elitist than Obama?

You are completely off the mark concerning drone strikes. This is a quintessential progressive strategy. Science and technology offer a means to deal with a highly vexing problem: eradicating a very real threat without the emotionally charged (and potentially politically problematic solution of conventional war.

There is also nothing remotely progressive about immigration reform, unless it is based on a study of Ivy League experts that conclude that millions of new immigrants are good for the economy.

Today’s liberals have conflated liberalism and progressivism to the point where neither term has any resemblance to its historic origins, and why? Because, whether you like it or not, liberal folly allowed conservatives to blacken the term "liberal," and so liberals who wanted relevance were desperate for another identifier.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 03:27 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The US had a progressive party in the early 20th century, and there was a progressive movement before that (in the muckraker era).

Was the term "progressive" around before that time?


Yes
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 03:29 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
A lot of people in this forum have argued that Obama is not a liberal, and that may be the case, but he certainly is a progressive.


Interesting.

I perceive Obama as a conservative. Using the definition either you or Thomas provided of progressive, he might well fall into the old Canadian Progressive Conservative model.


I shudder at your definition of conservative.

No conservative worth his salt would ever promise to fundamentally transform America and then proceed to attempt just that.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 03:40 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I don't put too much stock in these labels. Whether I am progressive or not depends on the context (my ideas don't change, but the meaning of the word does).

Around Boston, progressive is used as a catch-all to describe someone who is pro-choice, supportive of gay rights and immigrant rights, against capital punishment, etc. etc. The label isn't that useful, but you see it used to say that someone would fit into the broad liberal educated group that is common here. Saying someone is progressive is like saying he is a good guy.

In practice these labels encompass a laundry list of positions on issues. Most people would be justified in slapping a liberal or progressive label on me, but as with any of us, there are several issues where I would contradict that label.



These "labels" don't mean anything at all if you you don't care about having a comprehensive and cohesive philosophy. If all you care about is what you think is right at any given moment, regardless of the source of influence on your thinking at that moment, then you get to be whatever you want to call yourself.

"Label" (not unlike "liberal") has become a dirty word.

"My thoughts are too diverse and grand to be subject to a 'label'!"

Quote:
...you see it used to say that someone would fit into the broad liberal educated group that is common here. Saying someone is progressive is like saying he is a good guy.


And by extension, the uneducated, conservatives in your town are the bad guys?

Thanks for making my point max.



0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 03:51 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
No conservative worth his salt would ever promise to fundamentally transform America and then proceed to attempt just that.

so the Moral Majority were not considered good conservatives?? methinks you need to review your history.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 03:55 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Can you elaborate on what a libertarian on the social-left side of the scale means? Libertarian (primarily) in regards to "social issues"?

If so, this suggests that you have a different view on non-social issues, and if this is the case, what is that view?


Very much on the left-libertarian side in regard to social issues, which translates toa desire to keep government out of personal lives/personal decisions.

Somewhat less left-leaning on the economic side, but still a libertarian.

Once upon a time (maybe 40 years ago?), where I am now politically would likely have been called a Red Tory.


So you want to keep the government out of your bedroom (me too) but not so much your finances?

I enjoy sex, and watching "guilty pleasure" tv too. Not-with-standing the admonitions of the First Lady of the US, I enjoy fat-back and all sorts of wonderful candy. (BTW - I suspect she does too). I don't want Michelle or the federal government telling me the legal pleasure in which I can indulge are verbotten.

My finances finance my personal life, and if I don't want an overreaching government to muck up a single part of my life, I don't want them to muck up any part of my life.

So as long as they allow you to do whatever you please in bed, you're Ok with them taking the fruits of your labor?

If you don't trust them to mess with your "social" life, why do you trust them to mess with your "financial" life?

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 04:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative—nor as a moderate between them. It is my opinion that I do not belong on the continuum that supposedly exists between those two identities…and if I do “identify” myself politically, I embrace the term “iconoclast” in its more generic meaning.

There are elements of (what is generally known as) the conservative agenda that I support…and there are elements of (what is generally known as ) the liberal agenda that I support. Mostly, I support (what is generally known as) a progressive agenda.

While I consider American conservativism a blight on the world…I acknowledge that it has a place on the political stage as “the loyal opposition.” I just think many of its adherents have trouble being that “loyal opposition”…they want to lead, and they are, in my opinion, singularly unprepared to so and unskilled at doing so.

Further I think the problems plaguing the political system right now have less to do with the vast chasm that exists between “liberal” and “conservatives”…than it does with the fact that so many at the extremes of the two sides refuse to “see” the other position in any reasonable light.

The politicians, in my opinion, are at loggerheads with one another because the general populace is at loggerheads with itself.

The intransigence of the people here in A2K illustrates this problem in all its glory.



Quote:
Mostly, I support (what is generally known as) a progressive agenda.


And what is that?

Quote:
There are elements of (what is generally known as) the conservative agenda that I support


And what is that?

Quote:
there are elements of (what is generally known as ) the liberal agenda that I support.


And what is that?

Quote:
While I consider American conservativism a blight on the world


How so?

(And BTW, do you really think this comment isn't suggestive of the dread label you deserve?)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Nov, 2013 04:03 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Today, I perceive "liberal" and "progressive" as almost synonyms. "Progressive" is used by gutless liberals to avoid the widespread unpopularity of the word "liberal".

Quite correct. Reagan was very effective in transforming "liberal" into a slur, equivalent to "communist." Liberals, as is their wont, entirely bought into the Republican narrative, which left them searching for some other term that they could use to describe themselves. "Progressives," therefore, are just liberals who are afraid of offending conservatives. That, I suppose, makes Obama the arch-progressive.


Says a lot about liberals
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 04:29:29