Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

You - and the author of the screed you pasted - are simply treating your thesis as a tautology - defining as "liberal" or "progressive" anyone who did anything you later define as good or beneficial. However the truth is that "progressives" - by contemporary definitions - are no more associated with good than are their "conservative" opponents.

As the original poster, let me ask you: who were the Conservative artists, writers, and leaders who have progressed our society and Humanity as a whole?

Which Conservatives have fought for greater human rights for everyone? Have led our society in advances in morality and ethics?

It's true that Liberals don't always get it right; but Liberals and Progressive voices have gotten it right often enough to make them the dominant force of change and progress in our society.

I like the artist angle; who are the top Conservative artists?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As the original poster, let me ask you: who were the Conservative artists, writers, and leaders who have progressed our society and Humanity as a whole?

Which Conservatives have fought for greater human rights for everyone? Have led our society in advances in morality and ethics?

It's true that Liberals don't always get it right; but Liberals and Progressive voices have gotten it right often enough to make them the dominant force of change and progress in our society.

I like the artist angle; who are the top Conservative artists?

Cycloptichorn

Your claim is totally naive, cyclops. If you claim that conservatives never pull for change when change is the right thing to do, you are wrong on that point, and conversely, liberals are not always in favor of change. Also, change can be positive, and change can be hugely negative. Whether something is good or bad is not inherently defined according to whether it comes about from change. To back up a bit, I presume you are talking about modern liberals in America, which are not the same as people described by classic liberalism. So there are many factors that render your claims in error.

I don't have alot of interest in even dignifying your claims here by entering into an argument over this, because you have a pre-conceived fallacy that you will not let go of.

But I would much rather admire a Ronald Reagan than a Bill Clinton, and I think Mr Reagan is far more admired and respected, because he accomplished something, he stood for something, one being he took a stand to help end of the wall for one small thing. The wall, Mr. Cyclops, which is an icon of the totalitarian rulers under which millions of people died.

georgeob1 wrote:

You - and the author of the screed you pasted - are simply treating your thesis as a tautology - defining as "liberal" or "progressive" anyone who did anything you later define as good or beneficial. However the truth is that "progressives" - by contemporary definitions - are no more associated with good than are their "conservative" opponents.

You're wrong. Progressives are associated with progress. Sometimes this progress is good, sometimes it isn't. Conservatives are associated with the opposite.

The fact that most of the good things we have today, came from Progressive voices and minds, does not mean that progressive=good.

You asked for an example. I gave you one.

I would point out that tearing down the wall was change, not conserving something, but it was encouraged by a conservative.

To the extent that all the "good" things in our world are the result of the actions of such progressives, then it is inexorably true by precisely the same logic, that all the "bad" things are also the result of the actions of "progressives.

To repeat, tearing down the Wall was progress, cyclops, but it wasn't done by so-called "progressives." Liberals love to call themselves that, but it has little to do with actual progress.

Yes, I loved Ronald Reagan, because first of all, he gave great speeches and inspired positive feelings and actions. He believed in America and its great traditions of freedom of opportunity and everything else, unlike modern liberals. He believed in high ideals and he communicated those ideals. He stood for something.

As far as limiting government or making it smaller as he gave lip service to, it didn't happen because the Democratic Congress wouldh't let him for one big reason.

Modern liberals inspire nothing in me but total disgust. All they do is run down the country and the people that are the producers.

[
To you, the 'liberal' is a catch-all demon. Tell me - I'm a modern Liberal. Do I inspire nothing in you but total disgust?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
To you, the 'liberal' is a catch-all demon. Tell me - I'm a modern Liberal. Do I inspire nothing in you but total disgust?

Cycloptichorn

I admit you are one of my favorite liberals. You will discuss an issue in a civil way. But yes, many of your views are tainted with negativism toward the the greatness of what this country stands for, and the institutions that are positive. So, I am often disgusted by your opinions. Not always but commonly. But I think there is hope for you.

In the future, we will look at the past in America, and decide what worked well and what didn't. That's the Progressive way. To say that we don't have the power to change/shouldn't change, is the Conservative way. The two are both necessary for society to exist, but one has lead to far more advances in ethics, morals, governance, and equality than the other.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn