The difference between Progressivism and Libertarians >>OR<< Equal Justice is being pushed aside to make room for Social Justice
Poetic Justice
Justice is being pushed aside to make room for Social Justice
Liberals have *FAITH* in their ideology and no belief in economics....
Basically it is their religion to ignore economics. They believe that
they can create equality in economics like they believe they can force
equality in race by just passing laws for racial redistribution, by
genetically discriminating against different people. Leftist believe
that redistribution of discrimination will make people equal. They don't
understand that Government is there to be neutral in economic and
discrimination redistribution. Government is supposed to *treat* all
people equal NOT try to favor one over another to force them to be equal.
*That is the difference between Progressivism and Libertarians*
What they miss is that government can't force one human to be equal to
another, genetically or economically, because they are not equal.
The problem is that we are all different and the only guarantee in the
constitution is that Government will treat us all equal, not that all of
us will live life equally.
This is still just Marxism on the march.
*Equal Justice* is being pushed aside to make room for *Social Justice*
Poetic Justice
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:58 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> Liberals have *FAITH* in their ideology and no belief in economics....
>
>
> Liberals read history and can AT LEAST recall what
> loonytarian and conservative economics did to use
> several times over in the last 130 years.
>
increased freedom....
--
Michael Coburn
> The difference between Progressivism and Libertarians >>OR<< Equal
> Justice is being pushed aside to make room for Social Justice
Poetic Justice has faith in his lying and no respect for justice
whatsoever. He starts right out labeling liberals as "progressives".
>
> Liberals have *FAITH* in their ideology and no belief in economics....
First the lying rightards and the moonbat left assaulted liberals in the
late 60's and early 70's by labling them "commies" and this led to the
moonbats seeking shelter behind the name "progressive". This total
newspeak definition of liberals as being left wing moonbats was always
the objective. The lying seems to work for them among their faithful
trash.
> Basically it is their religion to ignore economics.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
> They believe that
> they can create equality in economics like they believe they can force
> equality in race by just passing laws for racial redistribution, by
> genetically discriminating against different people. Leftist believe
And didn't we know that "leftist" wasn't far behind. All we are missing
is the "fascist" and the "communist" labels.
> that redistribution of discrimination will make people equal. They don't
> understand that Government is there to be neutral in economic and
> discrimination redistribution. Government is supposed to *treat* all
> people equal NOT try to favor one over another to force them to be
> equal.
True. And government currently treats those who own property much
differently then those who do not. Those who own little in the way of
property constantly subsidize the owner class by virtue of government
enforcement of property rights while taxing all of us to provide that
enforcement.
> *That is the difference between Progressivism and Libertarians*
Now we have "progressivism" as a group???
> What they miss is that government can't force one human to be equal to
> another, genetically or economically, because they are not equal.
Yet they should be entitled to equal JUSTICE; equal treatment before the
law. And those who own little seldom get equal justice.
> The problem is that we are all different and the only guarantee in the
> constitution is that Government will treat us all equal, not that all of
> us will live life equally.
So fine and dandy. Legal representation should be _free_? Education in
all cases should be free? Access to water and land should cost exactly
the same for all???
> This is still just Marxism on the march.
What is "on the march", you lying pig?
> *Equal Justice* is being pushed aside to make room for *Social Justice*
LIE ALERT !!!! AGAIN!
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
Increased oppression by the owner class.
Poetic Justice
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:20:34 -0500, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>> s...@above.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:58 -0500, Poetic Justice
>>> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liberals have *FAITH* in their ideology and no belief in economics....
>>> Snicker
>>>
>>> Liberals read history and can AT LEAST recall what loonytarian and
>>> conservative economics did to use several times over in the last 130
>>> years.
>>>
>>>
>> increased freedom....
>
> Increased oppression by the owner class.
We are all the owner class. America is free that way.
--
Strabo
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:58 -0500, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>> The difference between Progressivism and Libertarians >>OR<< Equal
>> Justice is being pushed aside to make room for Social Justice
>
> Poetic Justice has faith in his lying and no respect for justice
> whatsoever. He starts right out labeling liberals as "progressives".
>
Like most people here he's probably generalizing. Correctly that
should be 'liberal-progressive.' A 'liberal' is not necessarily
a 'progressive.'
As an ideology a 'progressive' promotes *change* in society and culture
to the detriment and stability of both. In other words, it is designed
to de-construct civilization in preparation for a collapse whereupon
it will be built anew as a union of Socialist collectives. It is brand
of Marxism.
A liberal-progressive combines the core of American liberalism with
the above.
>
>> What they miss is that government can't force one human to be equal to
>> another, genetically or economically, because they are not equal.
>
> Yet they should be entitled to equal JUSTICE; equal treatment before the
> law. And those who own little seldom get equal justice.
>
Just equal treatment under law. As you know, justice is a different
concept.
>
>> The problem is that we are all different and the only guarantee in the
>> constitution is that Government will treat us all equal, not that all of
>> us will live life equally.
>
> So fine and dandy. Legal representation should be _free_? Education in
> all cases should be free? Access to water and land should cost exactly
> the same for all???
>
If the People prosecute the People pick up the tab.
Each has the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Education, medical care, etc., are not rights.
<snipped>
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:58 -0500, Poetic Justice wrote:
>>
>>> The difference between Progressivism and Libertarians >>OR<< Equal
>>> Justice is being pushed aside to make room for Social Justice
>>
>> Poetic Justice has faith in his lying and no respect for justice
>> whatsoever. He starts right out labeling liberals as "progressives".
>>
>>
> Like most people here he's probably generalizing. Correctly that should
> be 'liberal-progressive.' A 'liberal' is not necessarily a
> 'progressive.'
I am a liberal. I am not something other than a liberal no matter what
you might _WANT_ to label me.
I do not accept your personal definition of "progressive" even though I
have no interest in being anything other than the liberal that I am.
> A liberal-progressive combines the core of American liberalism with the
> above.
Whatever sort of newspeak crap it might take to define liberalism to be
Satan worship; that is what we will get from the rightarded. I have read
attempts to change the definition by masters such as O'Rourke. I've seen
him do it in one sentence by asserting "American" as an adjective and
explaining why the American version is "progressive" or "collectivist"
and then, of course, the adjective slowly disappears.
It is nothing more that 1984ish newspeak. Altering the language such
that unwanted concepts have no means of expression.
>>> What they miss is that government can't force one human to be equal to
>>> another, genetically or economically, because they are not equal.
>>
>> Yet they should be entitled to equal JUSTICE; equal treatment before
>> the law. And those who own little seldom get equal justice.
>>
>>
> Just equal treatment under law. As you know, justice is a different
> concept.
It may be a different concept, but the objective is always and forever to
make it the same. The law should dispense justice.
>>> The problem is that we are all different and the only guarantee in the
>>> constitution is that Government will treat us all equal, not that all
>>> of us will live life equally.
>>
>> So fine and dandy. Legal representation should be _free_? Education
>> in all cases should be free? Access to water and land should cost
>> exactly the same for all???
>>
>>
> If the People prosecute the People pick up the tab.
>
> Each has the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness. Education, medical care, etc., are not rights.
We have all the rights that the vast universal majority will agree upon.
We have the right to life and the internal view and the instinct for self
preservation then entitles us to the right to anything we desire so long
as we are willing to prosecute or defend that suppose "right" with our
very life. But that is an internal religious concept and not a concept
of any real value. For "rights" to have any meaning whatsoever
they must be shared with other sentient beings. Tell a bear that you
have the "right" to your back pack with those Snickers bars in it. You
_DO_ have that right even as the bear kills you. And after you are dead
it will make no difference. Tell him that the berry patch is yours and
that he will have to pay rent to pick some berries.
Rights are communal and societal agreements among _SENTIENT_ humans or
they do not serve. You can sit in a jail cell all your life believing you
have a right to the Milky Way and it will be tour right until you die.
And it will also be as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
If the greater society decides that it is _right_ to confiscate some
amount of what you believe to be yours in order to provide for and
promote the general welfare of the society (in your demon dictionary you
will find that particular concept under "collective") then that will be a
"right" of the society whether you agree as an individual or not. As a
matter of fact, your retention of individual rights and liberties remain
_BECAUSE_ such rights and liberties are thought by the larger society to
be conducive to the ascent of the species. If this was not so, your mom
might have long ago been thrown in a volcano.