I was just over at Democratic Underground -- Don't start flaming yet, it's the first time I ever was on that site, and I just wanted to see some of their bellyachin' over the Massachusetts election of Brown yesterday. There is some funny stuff on there!

I was reading on some of those threads where some of the Democraps thought that if they could get all of the "progressives" and all of the "Liberals" on the same page, then they wouldn't be in this mess.

I thought Progressives were Libs, and there are Progressive Libs mentioned too, as well as straight up Socialists? I guess I'm just not up on all the liberal lingo -- What are the differences in all these dipsticks?

liberal = old liberal
progressive = young liberal

You didn't get any on you did you?

I got a lot of good laughs -- you should go see it for yourself!

That'd be worse than "catching the gay"....

Ingwe

They are both leftists. That's really all that matters. A leftist is someone who believes in top down management of the society from a powerful central government in accordance with an all encompassing political ideology, i.e., central planning, social engineering (affirmative action, the graduated income tax, prohibition, minimum wage, you name it).

A rightest, on the other hand, is someone who wants a weak central government, prefers that most things be handled in the private sector, and if government must be involved, let it be local government, or at most state government. The central government should almost exclusively be concerned with outward looking matters, and have no regular contact or involvement with the lives of individuals.

Of course it depends who you read as to a definition. What Glen Beck and Rush say is that the progressives what to destroy the American goverment as we know it.

That the progressives like Michael Moore had taken over the Democrat Party and that Obama is one of them. That the progressives want to take over the Republican Party as well.

It was a good win for Brown and us. We need to identify these enemies and keep our freedoms.


http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23936/

Oh I understand right and left well, I just was curious as to the shades of leftism, or at least what it is that "they" think is different from others on the left.

Two ways to say the same thing. "Progressive" implies that conservative is "regressive".

Isn't "Progressive" auto insurance owned by Soros?

"To progressives, government supervision is the answer to every problem supposedly caused by the 'free market.' ... You have to understand that progressivism has nothing to do with the R or the D ... goals are always the same, benefiting the collective at the expense of the individual." - Glen Beck

Remember Hilary Clinton's book, It Takes A Village? That was her advocacy of progressivism.

The word liberal has enough poop on it that a new name is required. Liberal means

malignant government. Progressive means metastatic malignant government.

Progressives believe in a more agressive form of Socialism. It must be pushed not just allowing the people to move to it on their own accord.

Think Teddy Roosevelt, he was a Progressive.

The noun or word progressive used as a name has been around and in use since before the first world war and was coined by Wilson's administration. Much like the word totalitarian was coined from the Wilson administration. Progressive is just a newer way of saying fascist. Liberals are much like modern communist, they don't have a clue what they are a part of. Merrily being used as a tool by there masters.

Progressives believe in communism a liberal is two steps behind in lock step.

I think it was Ronald Reagan who said something to the effect of, "I didn't leave the Democratic party... they left me.".

There is a guy that swims laps at the same pool I do. Early on I saw him outside getting into a car with an Obama bumper sticker on it... I go out of my way not to speak with him. I don't want to be annoyed while I'm getting my exercise.

I know I have painted with a broad brush... the guy might have serious voter's remorse by now. Seems to me the tricky part of getting a more Conservative power base back will be to understand that not all Democrats are hard core Leftists...

Not sure how to go about a genuine reach across the isles but we need some of them to voice and embrace the same message Regan did...

Hold his head under water awhile, he'll come around.

OK, so I thought about bringing in a spear gun for awhile there... clean out the gene "pool" sort of thing

I go over there when something big happens just to see their sick twisted way of thinking.
It is very entertaining at times, but you always leave feeling dirty.

A liberal is a communist who is too stupid to try to hide behind the progressive label.
A progressive is a communist who understands the word liberal has negative connotations, and seeks to redefine the language (control the dialectic, comrades) to better suit his or her purposes. Kind like how environmentalists have tried to hijack the "conservationist" label.

And yes, Partagas, Progressive is owned by a Peter somebody who is butt-buddies with Soros, in Move On and a bunch of other left wing star chambers.

Dat's what I was thinking...:D

So there aren't many rightists left... I mean... remaining eh?

Well,,, Gosh,,,
I am a lefty/righty.
Eat, write, and shoot LH, but play sports Right handed, throw swing a bat et.

So,,, does this mean moderates are ambidextrous?

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being
corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his
revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his
tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who
rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins.
He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new
blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of
immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or
mutual check, in our Constitution."
-- Gilbert Keith Chesterton
(1874-1936) British essayist, critic, poet, and novelist
Source: Illustrated London News, 1924

Far as I can tell, only very liberal Democrats can see a distinction between the two.....whatever the difference is, it must be danged subtle..........



Casey

If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal.

If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative.

If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate.

If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. -- Joseph Sobran

Actually, that's not a bad truism........


Casey

It's a sliding scale. At the far right are folks that think like Barak (our Barak here at the Campfire), i.e., so far right that they want government so small and decentralized that it exists only in each individual who each constitutes a tiny government unto himself. At the middle right are folks like me, Andrew Napolitano, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Peter Schiff, etc. (not to mention five or six others here at the Fire), basically in line with the thinking of Founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Your typical Republican is only slightly right of center, or rather a mixture of right and left thinking, but the balance (when you throw all their views together and average them) is slightly right of center.

lol

I like that.

There's some bleed over on the liberal/conservative/moderate want lists, but that little snippet pretty much nails it.

And there's me who's crazy.

Aren't you an extreme right winger like Barak?

I guess so. I just thought you and everybody else thought I was crazy. Like what's name Sobal, I've gone from a government type to an anarcho-capitalist.

So you desire so little government, and such decentralization of governance, that it amounts to each individual being a government unto himself. That's "off-the-scale" right wing.

I had a book I don't know if I still have it or not called the "Sovereign Individual" that was based on the concept that technology would eventually lead to a sovereign individual from such technology as the Internet. Fuel cells for the home would go a long way to a sovereign individual too.

I do believe that people will eventually become their own sovereign and there will be no need for governments. It won't happen in my life time of course but it will happen.

If all we have to look forward to is more government well heck abortion is a viable option after all.

For the most part, it sounds like most of you guys think like I do, that a liberal, a progressive, and a socialist are pretty much the same damn thing. Leftist pinko scum

But one of the things I found the funniest over the at DU, is that the "progressives" are arguing with the "liberals". So again, what I am saying is that they don't think that they are the same as each other. It seems like the libs want the progressive to be more liberal, and vice verse.

So I had to go back over there and see if I could figure out what they think the answer to this question is (other than they are all just the opposite of conservatives).

I know that a fly is not a cow, I already knew that, but still when I refer to flies, even though I have little use for any of them, I still want to know if I'm referring to a house fly, a horse fly, a deer fly, or whatever.

Disclaimer, this is from a thread over there where they are at each others philosophies, and none of it is my philosophy.

------------------------------------------------------------
"In the US. To be liberal is to be a supporter of free markets and republican government. You can get a feel for just how meaningless the term is when you consider that a "neo-con" and a "neo-liberal" are the same thing. Historically, Alexander Hamilton was a liberal, Napolean was a liberal, and Porfirio Diaz was a liberal. Obviously, there's a lot of room within that term.

"Progressivism is a term that implies a reformist attitude toward social problems. Liberal progressives, who wish to attempt social reform, are, in the US, the opposing force to conservatives, who also champion a liberal economy and republic but don't believe government should play a role in social reform, or indeed that there should be real attempts at social reform.

I don't consider myself a liberal because I have anarcho-syndicalist tendencies, but I do consider myself a progressive because I believe in social reform. So, I'm not being a coward for not claiming the title "liberal"; I'm being honest".
____________________________________________________



They got their Neo-libs and DINOs too! and they are all getting worked up and cussing each other about the Mass. election!

I only can see this as good for the conservative cause -- swing right, Swing baby swing!!!!!!

Used to be that a liberal was an eastern elitist who was a democrat and a progressive was a midwestern farmer who was a democrat.

You left out conservatives as being pretty much the same as liberals, progressives, and socialists. More intrusive government via republicans isn't much different than more intrusive government via democrats.

No I didn't!

Conservatism is, among other things, the advocacy of smaller national government in keeping with a strict construction and the original intent of the United States Constitution. It is, however, a popular title, and many choose to call themselves by it merely because apparent-conservatism gets votes. Many of those who call themselves conservative for this reason are, at best, highly imperfect in their conservatism. It's the nature of politics. One judges a school of thought, however, properly by its tenets, not by the varied and sundry beliefs of each of its claimed adherents. The Roman emperor Tiberius Claudius, after all, called himself a Republican, and Torquemada a Christian.

From the 50's on the movement that goes by the title "conservative" has been pushing for more intrusive government. As a whole they don't exactly say that, but the goals they push for necessitate that fact and the candidates they support invariably work towards more government involvement in everyone's day to day life.

I think the problem is that you're calling neocons conservatives. They are not. Conservatives are right wingers. Neo-conservatism is a leftist phenomenon. They are in fact the philosophic descendants of leftist apostates, kicked out of the mainstream left for being pro-interventionist against international communism during the height of the Cold War. They were then taken in by the old right (authentic conservatives) because they shared an opposition to international communism.

As a result of this alliance against the mainstream left (who were apologists for international communism), the neocons partially adopted some of the traditional values of the old right (prompting the traditional left to disparagingly label them "neo-conservatives"), but they still remained fundamentally leftist in their outlook, especially with regard to the role of the Federal Government in society, i.e., an expansive one without regard for constitutional limits.

Gradually, due to the level of control held by the traditional left over the MSM, old right conservatives found themselves pushed out of public view. Neocons were then presented to the general public as the only remaining legitimate representatives of "modern conservatism," and dubbed "the new right."

This was a deception. Limited constitutional government according to a strict interpretation is, and has always been, central to conservatism in America. Do the "modern right" (or "new right" or "neo-conservatives," whatever you choose to call them) seem to be advocating that? Of course not. They are, fundamentally, leftists who have, with the help of the leftist MSM, misappropriated the right wing/conservative mantle.

Give us a list of conservatives from the 1950's on.

You want a list of folks from that time who were proponents of a strictly limited Federal Government in accordance with the US Constitution? That would be quite a list (Check out the John Birch Society and the US Constitution Party for starters). These folks, of course, were gradually written out of the new conservative movement and replaced by so called "big government conservatives." If that's not an oxymoron, nothing is.

Given at birth the name was Barry. Paid for name was and is "Barak" Just heard about this legal name change of his. I for one refuse to use his MauMau (he gave himself) name ever again.

You are referring to the wrong Barak. The Barack you are referring to is the pres.

I am well aware of the John Birch society and they were written out of the true goals of the conservative movement by at least the 1960's if not right out of the gate. The US Consitution Party was pissed on by mainstream conservatives from day one. Funny use of the word "gradually."

You folks have to go by actions that speak louder than words. All of Barry's and his administration have been with funding of the biggest corporations, My friends that only spells "Fascism". I wish you folks really understood what fascism really is and you would understand why both parties are so far gone in this direction.


WOODROW WILSON, Before it was TEEDY ROOSVELT, his cousin FRANKLIN, Jimmy Carter and now Obama have all been committed to the principles of Fascism and have been in the Oval office. The rest were steeped in the same fascism but just weren't as committed as the rest. By the way it's the Supreme Court that has been one of their most powerful tools.

No, but you`re pretty close, I think it`s Warren Buffet.( Well I just checked and I was mistaken ...... Progressive= Peter Lewis Geico= Warren Buffett [ I even spelled Buffett wrong]
I should mind my own business.

Bob