quote:

A well-meaning man may vaguely think of himself as a Progressive without having even the faintest conception of what a Progressive is.” Theodore Roosevelt

In recent years the word “progressive” has had a resurgence in popularity among American leftists (perhaps because the word “liberal” is too well understood by the American public)...

Ultimately, though, it doesn’t really matter what name left wingers use for their agenda. The agenda never changes.

The word “progressive” comes to us from the early twentieth century, when leftists like US Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson used it to portray themselves as agents of progress. History textbooks refer to the period during which these three men ran the government (1901 to 1919), as the “Progressive Era.” Most modern textbooks reflect the leftist bias of their authors by framing this period as a time when enlightened leaders used the power of government to promote “social justice.”1 The other side of the story, generally downplayed by history professors and other leftists, is the way the original “Progressive” politicians trampled on the Constitutional principle of checks and balances, and ushered in an era of unprecedented government power.

[Woodrow] Wilson had little regard for tradition. In a 1912 campaign speech he boasted that during his time as a university professor and university president he had frequently stated “that I should like to make the young gentlemen…as unlike their fathers as possible.”

Wilson’s concept of a “living constitution,” offered up in opposition to the old-fashioned idea of a binding written Constitution, has become an article of faith among liberals today. Vice President Al Gore, for example, promised during his 2000 presidential campaign that he would appoint Supreme Court Justices who viewed the US Constitution as a “living, breathing document,” subject to such ad hoc changes as they might see fit. No one had ever suggested such a thing before the Progressive Era.

Another leader of the Progressive movement was Dr. Frank Goodnow. Goodnow, like many other radical leftists, taught at Columbia University.

Today most liberals, while pushing for larger and more powerful government, nonetheless do at least give lip service to the idea of protecting the rights freedoms of the individual. Things were different in the Progressive Era. Goodnow and some of his fellow Progressives candidly opposed the founding principles of the United States, including the doctrine of “natural,” or God-given, individual rights...

Progressives like Goodnow understood that the doctrine of inalienable individual rights was antithetical to the kind of all-powerful central government they envisioned for the United States. If Government was to re-order every aspect of society in accordance with the Progressives’ agenda, it would have to have to have the power to over-ride individual rights in the service of the public good. Goodnow argued that only the repudiation of individual rights could allow the kind of progress that changing economic conditions required.

Whether liberal ideas are called “liberal” or “progressive” or even “populist,” they are always pretty much the same: Only government can do good things, and government must get bigger and more powerful in order to more good. The only real difference between the progressives of today and the Progressives of a hundred years ago is that those original progressives were more candid about their agenda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

so just curious there---is the premise you are contesting restricted to guns, or is it the larger premise having to do with liberals wanting to ban things for everyone that they themselves don't like?

quote:


Wilson’s concept of a “living constitution,” offered up in opposition to the old-fashioned idea of a binding written Constitution, has become an article of faith among liberals today

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Wilson’s concept of a “living constitution,” offered up in opposition to the old-fashioned idea of a binding written Constitution, has become an article of faith among liberals today

The only one who you could be talking about as the constitution being that, would be Taney. So, that doesn't hold you in good stead. Al Fuller whoever he is sure masturbates a great deal, but doesn't put much fact in it.

The founding fathers at the constitutional convention thought that they were making a living constitution to a man, and there were those who thought in time the document would be replace, some in the timeframe of 150 years, and some in a timefram of much less, like 5-10 years.

You can read about it from Madison's notes. As well as putting the lie to many other nutsucker myths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

so just curious there---is the premise you are contesting restricted to guns, or is it the larger premise having to do with liberals wanting to ban things for everyone that they themselves don't like?

Ok Nancy Reagan

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Thats easy Joe, they simply didnt dignify the whiners.

Joe, lets make a deal. I expect that people would agree with me that when the gublmint and the military and all the thugs world wide give up there guns then I think we might be able to work something out.

Let me know when you have accomplished that Joe

actually its more like when the "law-abiding" gun owners of this country take as much responsibility of ownership of the damn things as much as they covet the second amendment or flap their gums about it, then maybe we wouldn't need "to work something out." as much.

just cutting back on gun accidents would be a plus. when u have dumbasses from VP dick cheney shooting his friend in the head, to the local guy here who illegally brought a handgun into a target store only to have it fall out of his pocket and put a dent in the floor and a hole in the ceiling from the ricochet, among countless other gun fuckups, does NOT inspire the slightest bit of confidence in the a safety of a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

so just curious there---is the premise you are contesting restricted to guns, or is it the larger premise having to do with liberals wanting to ban things for everyone that they themselves don't like?

Ok Nancy Reagan

have no idea what you meant by that, nor do I suspect does anyone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, nothing relatively outrageous about it, it is fact. The outrageous claim is that there every was a magic document, unchanging and for all times, written by lofty minded geniuses, that was the end-all and be-all of the nation. Here's a hint, Gorham, for part of it. Hell, part of it is even in the wiki, something even imbeciles should be able to understand at minimum around the 10% level.

So, the tacit premise if fuck all the facts, I don't know any of this shit that really happened but I am certain that I am right, and Geo. Washington did chop down a cherry tree, and even though I don't have a clue who Gouvernuer Morris is (maybe the governor of North Dakota?) Everybody else is wrong, and some Al Fuller nutsucker slobber blogger is the font of all nutsucker knowledge, that would meet the necessary and sufficient conditions to be a prima facie outrageous claim.

Yeah, you got no skin in the game. You don't know the most basic history of this nation, your nutsucker party has damn near destroyed it, and you are trying to come of as other than a fucking cretin?

It so ain't happening. Maybe breitbart, daily caller, or washinton times, ijreview or some other nutsucker slobber blog has some more hallucinatory shit you can post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

if you read carefully, you will see i was simply asking Thompson to clarify to which premise he was referring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: ifmaz


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: ifmaz

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


I don't trust you so you must prove to me you are capable of expressing your First Amendment rights properly or I will take them away.

What do we do with people who shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire?


Do you mean "how do we punish someone after they've broken the law"?

I meant what I said.
The answer to the question I posited is that we curtail their first ammendment rights both before and after the fact. The law exists not only to punish but to prevent the abuse of a right...liberty is not license.

Because I'm reasonably certain that's not the solution joether is aiming at (no pun intended).

Joe's issue is trying to legislate against a non issue. Or as has sometimes been stated "he is a man with a paper asshole trying to fight a forest fire"



There is no way to legislate away the ability of someone to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

I have not spoken about the ability to legislate away the 'ability' of anyone to do anything. What I have pointed out is that legislation was instituted to indicate that there are some forms of speech that are not protected. That those forms of speech are restricted and if one engages in them there are conseuences. Please do not try to be obtuse with me. I know you are more intelligent.