Differences between a 1760-1970 "Classic Liberal" and a 2008+ Progressive

[Kurmugeon]

My wife and I were talking about the debate last night, and Hillary's comments, and her supporters responses to them.

She made the comment, "Yeah, well, at that snide comment by Hillary, I'm sure my Mom and Dad were cheering for Hillary... I love them, but I cannot agree with them... still, I love them."

My wife is a 30 year member of the Republican Party, and a self-declared "Conservative". She is also Hispanic and a lapsed Catholic.

That got me to thinking about the political ideal of "Tolerance", and what the word means to a "Conservative", a "Classic Liberal", and a "Progressive".

To a "Conservative", "Tolerance" is often "Live and Let Live, you have a right to be stupid, just don't ask me to pay for it."

To a "Classic Liberal", "Tolerance" is often "Live and Let Live, you might be stupid, and I'll try to show you enlightenment, but if you refuse, I'll love and support you anyway." (I think my wife calls herself a Conservative, but she is actually a "Classic Liberal".)

To a "Progressive", "Tolerance" is often "You will live the way I dictate or I'll punish you by every means at my disposal including: Sneering foul names, Social Ostracism, Failed Grades, Denial of Education, Denial of Employment, Denial of Promotion, Fines, Civil Legal Judgments, Criminal Prosecution, False Charges of Crimes, and.... I'll label you a RACIST!"

To a "Progressive", "Tolerance" is only to be measured by counting the percentages of specially protected groups, which can be too small, can but can never be too large.

A group can have too few Blacks, but it can never have too many.

A group can have too many Whites, but it cannot have too few.

More than anything else, it is the variances when it comes to defining "Tolerance" which delineates the difference between a

"Classic Liberal" and a "Progressive".

What do you think?


(BTW, Hillary calls herself a "Progressive"!)

-

 

[anatta]

I can't follow all those labels. I do know "progressives" are extremists.
There is no end to their desire to involve government in even the most mundane of human activities.

They have no clue about balance of power, and utter disregard for separation of powers.

Now it's free college, and of course how is it paid for? by some Rube Goldberg design on capital gains.
Hillary's proposal surpasses even a transaction tax - it's genuinely unfathomable.

Also there is this disdain for rich people. Clinton can't even agree that reducing regs helps grow economies.
It's all well and good to help the middle class, but corporations aren't inherently evil also.

They are whacked out of balance

 

[CFM]

I can't follow all those labels. I do know "progressives" are extremists.
There is no end to their desire to involve government in even the most mundane of human activities.

They have no clue about balance of power, and utter disregard for separation of powers.

Now it's free college, and of course how is it paid for? by some Rube Goldberg design on capital gains.
Hillary's proposal surpasses even a transaction tax - it's genuinely unfathomable.

Also there is this disdain for rich people. Clinton can't even agree that reducing regs helps grow economies.
It's all well and good to help the middle class, but corporations aren't inherently evil also.

They are whacked out of balance

Ever notice how progressives, when even the most mundane of activities they think the government should do fail, blame the failure on a lack of money rather than poor content? To them, it's always we didn't have enough of someone else's money.

 

[Callinectes]

My wife and I were talking about the debate last night, and Hillary's comments, and her supporters responses to them.

She made the comment, "Yeah, well, at that snide comment by Hillary, I'm sure my Mom and Dad were cheering for Hillary... I love them, but I cannot agree with them... still, I love them."

My wife is a 30 year member of the Republican Party, and a self-declared "Conservative". She is also Hispanic and a lapsed Catholic.

That got me to thinking about the political ideal of "Tolerance", and what the word means to a "Conservative", a "Classic Liberal", and a "Progressive".

To a "Conservative", "Tolerance" is often "Live and Let Live, you have a right to be stupid, just don't ask me to pay for it."

To a "Classic Liberal", "Tolerance" is often "Live and Let Live, you might be stupid, and I'll try to show you enlightenment, but if you refuse, I'll love and support you anyway." (I think my wife calls herself a Conservative, but she is actually a "Classic Liberal".)

To a "Progressive", "Tolerance" is often "You will live the way I dictate or I'll punish you by every means at my disposal including: Sneering foul names, Social Ostracism, Failed Grades, Denial of Education, Denial of Employment, Denial of Promotion, Fines, Civil Legal Judgments, Criminal Prosecution, False Charges of Crimes, and.... I'll label you a RACIST!"

To a "Progressive", "Tolerance" is only to be measured by counting the percentages of specially protected groups, which can be too small, can but can never be too large.

A group can have too few Blacks, but it can never have too many.

A group can have too many Whites, but it cannot have too few.

More than anything else, it is the variances when it comes to defining "Tolerance" which delineates the difference between a

"Classic Liberal" and a "Progressive".

What do you think?


(BTW, Hillary calls herself a "Progressive"!)

-

I think that is one of the most succinct explanations of these factions that I have heard.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Durrrr

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Fwdsfromgrandma

 

[anatta]

To a "Progressive", "Tolerance" is only to be measured by counting the percentages of specially protected groups, which can be too small, can but can never be too large.

A group can have too few Blacks, but it can never have too many.

A group can have too many Whites, but it cannot have too few.

true. what are they going to do when whites are a minority (<50% ) of the country -which isn't far off.
Well they can always just keep calling them 'racists' I suppose

 

[Bill]

My wife and I were talking about the debate last night, and Hillary's comments, and her supporters responses to them.

She made the comment, "Yeah, well, at that snide comment by Hillary, I'm sure my Mom and Dad were cheering for Hillary... I love them, but I cannot agree with them... still, I love them."

My wife is a 30 year member of the Republican Party, and a self-declared "Conservative". She is also Hispanic and a lapsed Catholic.

That got me to thinking about the political ideal of "Tolerance", and what the word means to a "Conservative", a "Classic Liberal", and a "Progressive".

To a "Conservative", "Tolerance" is often "Live and Let Live, you have a right to be stupid, just don't ask me to pay for it."

To a "Classic Liberal", "Tolerance" is often "Live and Let Live, you might be stupid, and I'll try to show you enlightenment, but if you refuse, I'll love and support you anyway." (I think my wife calls herself a Conservative, but she is actually a "Classic Liberal".)

To a "Progressive", "Tolerance" is often "You will live the way I dictate or I'll punish you by every means at my disposal including: Sneering foul names, Social Ostracism, Failed Grades, Denial of Education, Denial of Employment, Denial of Promotion, Fines, Civil Legal Judgments, Criminal Prosecution, False Charges of Crimes, and.... I'll label you a RACIST!"

To a "Progressive", "Tolerance" is only to be measured by counting the percentages of specially protected groups, which can be too small, can but can never be too large.

A group can have too few Blacks, but it can never have too many.

A group can have too many Whites, but it cannot have too few.

More than anything else, it is the variances when it comes to defining "Tolerance" which delineates the difference between a

"Classic Liberal" and a "Progressive".

What do you think?


(BTW, Hillary calls herself a "Progressive"!)

-

Quite the straw-women you built there........

Tolerance, in it's various forms is what conservatism is about now??

How bout we start w/ the gop?? Ya'll have wandered quite a ways off the plantation.........

While you criticize "liberals" & "progressives" (which hillary is not) perhaps you should start by taking the damn log out of your own parties eye??

How tolerant has your party been w/ gays?? Women wanting to make their own choices??

According to a real conservative:

 

[Airstrip One]

Bill, murdering people is not conservative, and never will be. Period.

 

[J Craft]

I don't give two shits about who screws who. I do have a problem with legitimizing via legislation, deviant sexual behaviors. And the wanton killing of children should be denounced by everyone.