Why are you a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Centrist etc..

Every time I read one of your posts, I become more and more convinced of my views. Keep it up! Thanks!

You've just admitted to being a Facist.

Well they were definitely against the Constitution since Progressives supported women suffrage rights.

OTOH, one of our greatest presidents ran as a Progressive-Teddy Roosevelt.

Bull Moose years of Theodore Roosevelt by Theodore Roosevelt Association

If you want to slur a war hero, we will have to differ.

The Battle of San Juan Hill — History.com This Day in History — 7/1/1898

Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt ran as progressives but it still does not change the meaning. Progress is a good word used to describe a bad political revival of a failed, undemocratic and liberal form of statism.

You've just admitted to being a Facist.

WTF? How did you come to this conclusion?

WTF? How did you come to this conclusion?

Because my views are diametrically opposed to hers.:roll:

I think everybody should take a breather and carefully read these words by a political mastermind of the mid '80's...

"Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people."
Ferris Beuller - 1986

Chill out people!

Because my views are diametrically opposed to hers.:roll:

That's not the reason. You said conservatives are facists. I replied with a definition of facism. You responded this because of my post," Every time I read one of your posts, I become more and more convinced of my views. Keep it up!

Hence, my conclusion.

That's not the reason. You said conservatives are facists. I replied with a definition of facism. You responded this because of my post," Every time I read one of your posts, I become more and more convinced of my views. Keep it up!

Hence, my conclusion.

I get it. You're just angry. Well we already new that. I heartily recommend you rent a copy of Yellow Submarine.

I get it. You're just angry. Well we already new that. I heartily recommend you rent a copy of Yellow Submarine.

Wrong again as I'm not the angry one. A bit dog barks.

I get it. You're just angry. Well we already new that. I heartily recommend you rent a copy of Yellow Submarine.

Won't work, LS, she hates the Beatles also. (Anybody that states that progressives hate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is going to be a little bit removed from reality. In the meantime remember All You Need is Love.

Progressivism is the political movement which is largely responsible for the growth and vast expansion of centralized administration in the federal government.

Progressives are against the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Progressives have a profound respect for parts of the Constitution, particularly the Bill or Rights. They have also been heavily involed in amending, most good, others bad. (Prohibition & the federal income tax, argh!) Progressives do tend to wish for a Constitution that is simpler to change. Because of this, they tend to push for judges that are willing to change it's meaning without going through the normal process ("living" vs. "dead"). This is where conservatives take the most issue.

But generally I think both sides have a profound respect for the document overall.

Won't work, LS, she hates the Beatles also. (Anybody that states that progressives hate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is going to be a little bit removed from reality. In the meantime remember All You Need is Love.

My post stated the Progressives are against the principles of the Constitution not that they hate the Constitution. Instead of being so ready to jump on other posters it would be very useful to make informed comments. I don't care one bit if you disagree with me but please don't misquote me. Thanks.

My post stated the Progressives are against the principles of the Constitution not that they hate the Constitution. Instead of being so ready to jump on other posters it would be very useful to make informed comments. I don't care one bit if you disagree with me but please don't misquote me. Thanks.

Sorry, my bad. I paraphrased instead of directly quoting you. Your attitude seems a bit hate-filled, so it was an honest mistake. If you didn't fill your posts with blanket indictments of leftist enviornmentalists, progressives, and liberals, perhaps you wouldn't be perceived as as a hate-monger. That's simply my personal opinion. If it wasn't for "progressives", you would not even be able to vote. You would have to sit in the corner and shut up. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

Sorry, my bad. I paraphrased instead of directly quoting you. Your attitude seems a bit hate-filled, so it was an honest mistake. If you didn't fill your posts with blanket indictments of leftist enviornmentalists, progressives, and liberals, perhaps you wouldn't be perceived as as a hate-monger. That's simply my personal opinion. If it wasn't for "progressives", you would not even be able to vote. You would have to sit in the corner and shut up. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

Here are some good facts about the right for women to vote:

Republican Senator A. A. Sargent of California pioneered the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1878. Encouraged by Susan B. Anthony, Sargent?s amendment was also called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Unfortunately, a Democrat controlled senate defeated the passage of the amendment four times.

Republican-Controlled Congress Finally Passes Suffrage for Women
Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.

As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification?eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

Even before the Amendment was part of the Constitution, twelve states, all with Republican congresses, had conferred suffrage rights on women. The 19th Amendment entered the Constitution August 26, 1920, after Tennessee, the last state to do so, ratified the Amendment.

Thanks for your reply but I disagree with your opinion that I am hate-filled. It is a card played to intimidate in lieu of reason. As far as my view of environmentalists, I do not agree with the far, far left environmentalist who are for everything but human beings. I am an environmentalist just not a radical one. I've said nothing hateful about progressives, only what their core principles are.

Here are some good facts about the right for women to vote:

Republican Senator A. A. Sargent of California pioneered the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1878. Encouraged by Susan B. Anthony, Sargent?s amendment was also called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Unfortunately, a Democrat controlled senate defeated the passage of the amendment four times.

Republican-Controlled Congress Finally Passes Suffrage for Women
Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.

As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification?eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

Even before the Amendment was part of the Constitution, twelve states, all with Republican congresses, had conferred suffrage rights on women. The 19th Amendment entered the Constitution August 26, 1920, after Tennessee, the last state to do so, ratified the Amendment.

Thanks for your reply but I disagree with your opinion that I am hate-filled. It is a card played to intimidate in lieu of reason. As far as my view of environmentalists, I do not agree with the far, far left environmentalist who are for everything but human beings. I am an environmentalist just not a radical one. I've said nothing hateful about progressives, only what their core principles are.

Democrats were a whole different breed back then. They just didn't want to be in the party of Lincoln. I guess they had no "direction" it was just a "way of life".

Here are some good facts about the right for women to vote:

Republican Senator A. A. Sargent of California pioneered the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1878. Encouraged by Susan B. Anthony, Sargent?s amendment was also called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Unfortunately, a Democrat controlled senate defeated the passage of the amendment four times.

Republican-Controlled Congress Finally Passes Suffrage for Women
Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.

As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification?eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

Even before the Amendment was part of the Constitution, twelve states, all with Republican congresses, had conferred suffrage rights on women. The 19th Amendment entered the Constitution August 26, 1920, after Tennessee, the last state to do so, ratified the Amendment.

Thanks for your reply but I disagree with your opinion that I am hate-filled. It is a card played to intimidate in lieu of reason. As far as my view of environmentalists, I do not agree with the far, far left environmentalist who are for everything but human beings. I am an environmentalist just not a radical one. I've said nothing hateful about progressives, only what their core principles are.

snap snap snap! You go girl!

This collage of facts seems to suggest that the progressive wings of the republican state parties alligned with the progressive wings of the democratic state parties and ratified a progressive piece of legislation that helped a majority of people in the United States.

As to your statement that leftist enviormentalists caused the greatest oil spill in US history, I believe the emerging facts suggest that the de-regulation of energy industries under the Cheney-Bush agenda was the major reason that the atmosphere of greed over safety led to the major mining disaster and oil disaster of 2010. The myth, that major energy corporations will self-regulate as opposed to grabbing all profits by any means possible (i.e. ignoring basic safety policies), has been put to rest.

I'm not a conservative because I consider conservatism to be Fascism lite. If I had to choose, I would choose anarchy or death over Fascism. I think the ideal conservative society would be a place like North Korea with greater military might. Conservatives have this attitude of "bow to tradition" or "worship my god" or "get in line and be like us" and I say screw you!

This is where the disrespect was injected into this thread. Nothing wrong with strong viewpoints but be respectful or leave. The last two words are not necessary and will do nothing but provoke.

Anarchy is anti-authoritarian. Conservatives and Nazis (you brought them up not me) are very authoritarian. They are all part of the right (wrong I should say) and believe in a strong centralized government in order to support a platform of belligerent nationalism. Polar opposite of anarchists who rightly or wrongly prefer a state of disorder and chaos. I say it's wrong, but far preferable to the extreme conservative ideal, which is alive and well in North Korea. Substitute god and Jesus for Kim Yung Ill and his dead father and you've got right wingnut paradise.

Again, too far.

You've just admitted to being a Facist.

Taking the bait.

I get it. You're just angry. Well we already new that. I heartily recommend you rent a copy of Yellow Submarine.

A cute smiley doesn't hide your anger.

Wrong again as I'm not the angry one. A bit dog barks.

Barking and biting - bad dogs get put outside.

Won't work, LS, she hates the Beatles also. (Anybody that states that progressives hate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is going to be a little bit removed from reality. In the meantime remember All You Need is Love.

No need to pile on. No need to talk about hate.

________________

This thread subject predictably makes it a hot one. Consider it a test of your decency, and respect level for yourself and others.

This collage of facts seems to suggest that the progressive wings of the republican state parties alligned with the progressive wings of the democratic state parties and ratified a progressive piece of legislation that helped a majority of people in the United States.

As to your statement that leftist enviormentalists caused the greatest oil spill in US history, I believe the emerging facts suggest that the de-regulation of energy industries under the Cheney-Bush agenda was the major reason that the atmosphere of greed over safety led to the major mining disaster and oil disaster of 2010. The myth, that major energy corporations will self-regulate as opposed to grabbing all profits by any means possible (i.e. ignoring basic safety policies), has been put to rest.

Nothing has been put to rest except possibly your, and many others, sensibilities. Of course corportations should not be self regulating. By the same token, extremest environmentalists should not be allowed to run rampant over landowners, fishermen and ordinary citizens, but to a great degree, that is exactly what is occurring. While I will agree there is more than enough greed present to go around, there is also enough lack of common sense on the part of many to make up for it.
Anybody who has been involved in a risky occupation or undertaking is well aware that the first consideration is the safety of all participants in the undertaking. Sometimes not enough precaution is taken by those conducting the operation, what ever it may be, to create the safest condition possible. Sometimes the individuals whose safety is at risk ignore the rules and regulations put in place and tragedy results. Your placing the lack of safety regulations and the result of the ignoring of them, on greed and grabbing profits alone, is solely without merit. There are many reasons for natural and man made disasters other than just greed.

Nothing has been put to rest except possibly your, and many others, sensibilities. Of course corportations should not be self regulating. By the same token, extremest environmentalists should not be allowed to run rampant over landowners, fishermen and ordinary citizens, but to a great degree, that is exactly what is occurring. While I will agree there is more than enough greed present to go around, there is also enough lack of common sense on the part of many to make up for it.
Anybody who has been involved in a risky occupation or undertaking is well aware that the first consideration is the safety of all participants in the undertaking. Sometimes not enough precaution is taken by those conducting the operation, what ever it may be, to create the safest condition possible. Sometimes the individuals whose safety is at risk ignore the rules and regulations put in place and tragedy results. Your placing the lack of safety regulations and the result of the ignoring of them, on greed and grabbing profits alone, is solely without merit. There are many reasons for natural and man made disasters other than just greed.

I am not putting the blame on every man-made disaster on greed. I am putting the blame for this oil spill on greed. Many reports have come out that many subcontractors doing work on Deepwater Horizon were firmly in favor of shutting the rig down for safety concerns, but the Company Man from BP demanded that they continue the cementing operations. The reason was that the operation of the rig was costing BP $500,000 per day. I have heard reports that BP makes in the neighborhood of 68 million dollars per day in profits. If they can't pay 500K out of their profits to insure that this rig was operated safely, then that is greed. As a footnote, the chief drillmaster of the rig was one off the people that argued strenuouly with the BP man to shut down the rig, and he was one of the men killed in the explosion. Now please tell me how enviornmental extremists had anything to do with this oil spill.

I am not putting the blame on every man-made disaster on greed. I am putting the blame for this oil spill on greed. Many reports have come out that many subcontractors doing work on Deepwater Horizon were firmly in favor of shutting the rig down for safety concerns, but the Company Man from BP demanded that they continue the cementing operations. The reason was that the operation of the rig was costing BP $500,000 per day. I have heard reports that BP makes in the neighborhood of 68 million dollars per day in profits. If they can't pay 500K out of their profits to insure that this rig was operated safely, then that is greed. As a footnote, the chief drillmaster of the rig was one off the people that argued strenuouly with the BP man to shut down the rig, and he was one of the men killed in the explosion. Now please tell me how enviornmental extremists had anything to do with this oil spill.

I am talking about the general attitude and response of environmental extremist to ANY situation with which they disagree, not just the present tragedy in the gulf. Do you or any one of your obvious belief ever really read what someone with a different point of view writes? From your response to my last post, it would not appear so, but then why am I not surprised. Also, please note I am referring to extremists, not environmentalists of which, in the normal realm of events, I consider myself one. Additionally, I do not have one bit of sympathy or support for BP or our government in this incident. If you drill where you cannot possibly reach the wellhead you have to be stupid beyond reproach, IMHO, but then in fairness, I am not a petroleum engineer.

I am doing this for a school project and think it may be fun to do here on Sowal.

I'll start:

I'm a Republican because:

• ...
• I believe that every child has a constitutional right to an equal education granted by the government...
• I also believe that non-U.S. citizen enemies of freedom around the world should have no constitutional and limited human rights....

[/LIST]
Your turn...

Perhaps you need to dust off those US Gov't school books, or better yet, just grab a copy of the US Constitution. Then, after reading the Constitution, please share with us the part about equal education granted by the gov't. After that, please find the part in the Constitution which says you have to be a US citizen to have Constitutional rights while in the USA.

By the way, not only are those not in the Constitution, they are not part of the Republican platform. Maybe your report should be on why people are not learning about our Founding Documents in school. ;-)

I am talking about the general attitude and response of environmental extremist to ANY situation with which they disagree, not just the present tragedy in the gulf. Do you or any one of your obvious belief ever really read what someone with a different point of view writes? From your response to my last post, it would not appear so, but then why am I not surprised. Also, please note I am referring to extremists, not environmentalists of which, in the normal realm of events, I consider myself one. Additionally, I do not have one bit of sympathy or support for BP or our government in this incident. If you drill where you cannot possibly reach the wellhead you have to be stupid beyond reproach, IMHO, but then in fairness, I am not a petroleum engineer.

Andy: I don't have any quarrell with you. Sarahwind stated that "leftist enviornmentalists were responsible for this oil spill". Vitually all of my energy has been devoted to finding out how anyone can make such an insulting statement with no facts to bear this out. This oil spill is like nothing else that has happened. I'm quite sure that enviormentalists can go to extremes, yet I'd just as soon side with them as the extremists who decided to drill 5,000 feet below the Gulf of Mexico without adequate drill casing and no functional blow-out protector. The enviormentalists, whether their methods are extreme or not, are trying to protect us all from our own insane poison.

what does it say about an individual who would rant about environmentalists in the face of an unprecedented oil spill.

Perhaps you need to dust off those US Gov't school books, or better yet, just grab a copy of the US Constitution. Then, after reading the Constitution, please share with us the part about equal education granted by the gov't.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That's a little something called the 10th Amendment. Education was not guaranteed in the constitution because it was left to the individual states. Massachusetts had compulsory education in the 1600's and it eventually spread to every state.

I would argue that since every state has compulsory education and every state is held to the 14th amendment, that that means every child has a guaranteed right to equal education guaranteed by the law. If you have a way of arguing against that I would be interested in hearing it.

After that, please find the part in the Constitution which says you have to be a US citizen to have Constitutional rights while in the USA.

Nowhere does it say that, and I never said it did. The constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. But the drafters of the document recognized that they cannot predict the future. Which is why they allowed the constitution to be amended.

The "Founding Fathers" were politicians, and that only. They were some of the greatest political minds ever to live on this planet. But they were human and they were definitely not God. Do you really think the founding fathers predicted everything that was going to happen in the future? Could they have known about the ways the international economies of the world would be connected in the future and how immigration would affect us.

Our government throughout history has gone beyond what the constitution specifically allows, and as long as they hold to the structure of government the constitution established, I don't think the "Founding Fathers would be against it.

By the way, not only are those not in the Constitution, they are not part of the Republican platform. Maybe your report should be on why people are not learning about our Founding Documents in school. ;-)

I would say that neither party even has a unified platform on immigration currently; that is one of the reasons it's so difficult to solve.

As for education, I would hope both parties have equal education as part of their platform. I just think the Republicans have better ideas to make it happen. And I don't know what you're talking about but I was referring to school vouchers; which are definitely part of the mainstream Republican platform.