I cannot reccommend this book enough for Progressive Americans who are looking for better ways to communicate their ideas.

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Points-Communicating-American-Values/dp/0374530904/sr=1-1/qid=1167274082/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1641979-0933643?ie=UTF8&s=books

What does "Progressive" mean, exactly?

What does "Progressive" mean, exactly?

Well the book talks about that.

In short, it means believing in a "nurturent parent" model of a family rather than a "strict father" model of a family.

Conservatives tend to subscribe to the "strict father" ideology because it presupposes that everyone is born wicked and needs a strict hand to force them to behave.

Conversely, Progressives believe that people are basiclly good and merely need to have those good traits nurtured and encouraged in order to get them to behave.

That was the very short version.

Hmm.... I think we should have a discussion about Progressives in the Politics forum. Feel free to start one while I go read up on them on Wikipedia... ;)

Well the book talks about that.

In short, it means believing in a "nurturent parent" model of a family rather than a "strict father" model of a family.

Conservatives tend to subscribe to the "strict father" ideology because it presupposes that everyone is born wicked and needs a strict hand to force them to behave.

Conversely, Progressives believe that people are basiclly good and merely need to have those good traits nurtured and encouraged in order to get them to behave.

That was the very short version.
Okay then. By this definition, libertarians are the most progressive, followed by old-school conservatives, followed by present-day liberals, followed by the current definition of "conservative", followed by "law-and-order" liberals. Concur, object?

In all honesty I think the liberal vs conservative divide is a misnoemer because it has become too confused with Democrats vs Republicans.

The issue is really Populists vs Corporatists. There are Corporatists and populists on both sides of the aisle, but you will never hear about that dichotomy in the media because it is corporatist owned. They use the Democrat vs Republican divide like "good cop, bad cop" and we average Americans are stuck in the middle with no real voice except the internet and they are trying to take that away too.

Okay then. By this definition, libertarians are the most progressive, followed by old-school conservatives, followed by present-day liberals, followed by the current definition of "conservative", followed by "law-and-order" liberals. Concur, object?

Neither, since I don't really know what you are talking about.

I have never heard of a "law and order" liberal.

What is that?

Okay then. By this definition, libertarians are the most progressive, followed by old-school conservatives, followed by present-day liberals, followed by the current definition of "conservative", followed by "law-and-order" liberals. Concur, object?

Well then, after reading up on Progressivism, I'm even more inclined than before to call myself a libertarian.

Well then, after reading up on Progressivism, I'm even more inclined than before to call myself a libertarian.

That goes back to what I said about Corporatism.

Libertarians are the ultimate corporatists. They believe that "the market" should be the ruling authority in our society instead of government.

Under Libertarians, everything Enron and Worldcom did would be perfectly legal and even if it weren't, there would not be anyone with the power to enforce the law.

Thom Hartmann calls libertarians "Republicans who smoke pot".

I call them "optimistic anarchists".

That goes back to what I said about Corporatism.

Libertarians are the ultimate corporatists. They believe that "the market" should be the ruling authority in our society instead of government.

Under Libertarians, everything Enron and Worldcom did would be perfectly legal and even if it weren't, there would not be anyone with the power to enforce the law.

Thom Hartmann calls libertarians "Republicans who smoke pot".

I call them "optimistic anarchists".

Well, first of all, I'm more of a left-leaning libertarian, so my opinions (especially in economics), are not as cut-and-dried as all that...

Oh and actually I like the "optimistic anarchists" tag. I used to be into the punk scene, I wore the t-shirt with the little anarchy symbol on it... Although I look back on those years and shake my head, I still don't consider that an insult.

I used to be a hardcore anarchist, Anarcho-Syndicalist. Communism without the Soviet connotation, a few differences in organization. I'll always be an anarchist at heart as I don't understand what right society at all has to tell me what to do, but funny thing, I stopped caring so much about politics when I got a girlfriend.

That goes back to what I said about Corporatism.

Libertarians are the ultimate corporatists. They believe that "the market" should be the ruling authority in our society instead of government.

Under Libertarians, everything Enron and Worldcom did would be perfectly legal and even if it weren't, there would not be anyone with the power to enforce the law.

Thom Hartmann calls libertarians "Republicans who smoke pot".

I call them "optimistic anarchists".
I love these debates. The market has great power to regulate industry, yes, but I certainly don't believe in complete deregulation. Specifically, the market doesn't seem amenable to protecting the environment, and I firmly believe a clean environment to be the right of every person on this Earth. Pollution of the environment is akin to assault. Your right to pollute the air around you ends at my nose, to use an old phrase, slightly altered.

I am not an anarchist, an anarcho-syndicalist, a Republican, or anything like that. Indeed, I far more concur with the Democratic Party than the Republican, which is presently the party of those who wish to mix religion with politics. In last month's elections, I voted for Jim Davis (D) for governor, Bill Nelson (D) for U.S. Senator, Samm Simpson (D) for U.S. House, Alex Sink (D) for CFO, and a long list of other Democrats (with a single Republican, Charles Bronson, thrown in for agricultural commissioner, because he's done just fine in that job so far). I am also officially registered as a Libertarian on my voter registration.

Civil liberties, those which tend to involve individuals, rank more important on my list than economic liberties, those which tend to mostly involve corporations merely because they involve money, something corporations deal with far more than Joe Sixpack. I think that corporations should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else, yes. Enron and WorldCom bankrupted a great deal of investors primarily by lying about their finances, a crime I believe is called fraud. No libertarian or Libertarian (the former being a philosophy, the latter being an American political party) I have ever met has told me they believe that what Enron and WorldCom did were perfectly alright. But we all agree that the government should have a very limited function in society, and attempts to turn the government into "the defenders of marriage", a way to impose religion on people, or a way to equalize everyone (rather than equalize the opportunities for everyone) frankly disgust me. You, sir, don't have any idea what it means to be a libertarian. It's not "Republicans smoking pot" or "Democrats who hate poor people", as amusing as these descriptions are. It's not about anarchism, or else we'd call ourselves anarchists. It's about minarchism, the rights of the individual preceding the right of the state to regulate. It's about allowing choice, freedom, and liberty. It's people like you (not exclusively, mind you) who view corporations as inherently bad who undermine liberty in society. What are corporations but constructs of individuals? Indeed, what is the government but a construct of individuals? The government just so happens to be the only construct to which we must pay heed, as it is the only construct granted the ability to restrict our freedom if we are restricting the freedoms of others.

The only moral authority the government has is to protect our freedoms. That's why we have a government. Hell, even welfare and Social Security have the aim of protecting freedom. That's why we give up a little bit of our freedom, in order to receive the protection. I'm perfectly happy to give up my freedom to kill someone (something I would never do to begin with, police or no police) in order to receive the protections afforded by the government that allow me to feel secure that neither I nor those I love shall be killed. That's what libertarianism is. Not protecting corporations at all costs. I don't know where you got that idea; it doesn't even make sense. It's about protecting liberty. Liberty from the one construct which need only serve the function of protecting our rights from those who seek to limit them, and no more.

Borghunter, I would go so far as to say that corporations have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are completely incapable of policing or regulating themselves.

Government is the only tool with the power to regulate business for the interests of society. We need to start using government regulation of business again or we will be back where we were 100 years ago with "Robber Barons" running everything.

Conversely, Progressives believe that people are basiclly good and merely need to have those good traits nurtured and encouraged in order to get them to behave.

They're easy to spot in public because their kids are running around causing trouble.

but funny thing, I stopped caring so much about politics when I got a girlfriend.
:@@:

I had a boyfriend, until recently. I think Ill stick to politics.
:(

Did you lose your boyfriend?

Is he behind the couch, perhaps? That's where I found Jesus. ;)

What was he doing behind the couch - hiding from the I.N.S. ?

They're easy to spot in public because their kids are running around causing trouble.

lol, thats so true. remeber that guy manlyhose who came in and called me a fascist becasue I dare to discipline my kids

lol, thats so true. remeber that guy manlyhose who came in and called me a fascist becasue I dare to discipline my kids

Kids need smacking sometimes...

lol, thats so true. remeber that guy manlyhose who came in and called me a fascist becasue I dare to discipline my kids
Oh god, manlyhose? ::shudder::

They're easy to spot in public because their kids are running around causing trouble.

So... Conservatives are easy to spot as their kids are the ones with bruises and scars, cowering behind their parents at the mall, hoping not to attract their backhanded wrath again.

</sarcasm>

My dad's conservative, and he spoils the shit out of my little brother. When we go to a restaurant, he's all over the fucking place. I have to torture him whenever my dad isn't looking to keep the little fart in line.

Yep, my dad's conservative too, and he gives my little sister whatever she wants.

Actually he almost got my mom put in jail when she spanked my brother and me when we were little.

So... Conservatives are easy to spot as their kids are the ones with bruises and scars, cowering behind their parents at the mall, hoping not to attract their backhanded wrath again.

</sarcasm>

Good - you're able to use humor, now you just need to work on recognizing it.

Of course I wasn't totally kidding . . .

if you want to see a sad display of parenting come to california and go to the bay area. You will see some kid screaming bloody murder about wanting a toy or something while the parent sits there speaking to him as if they were talking to another adult instead of a raging 4 year old. "now Billy, you know we have discussed this at length. Mommy does not approve of the way you are acting nor does anybody that your current attitude is affecting" meanwhile the kid is dumping out boxes of toys and clearing off shelves with swipes of his arms while screaming at the top of his lungs, totally out of control.

Of course I wasn't totally kidding . . .

Yeah... and that is just sad.

The left coast & bay area have no monopoly on parents who let the child rule the roost. A great many, coast to coast, act as though they need to be friends and not the adult in the relationship. They don't know how to administer discipline properly.
And, before the screaming starts --- proper discipline does not require being physically abusive to the child.

proper discipline does not require being physically abusive to the child.

Many people do not know how to discipline at all without using physical punishment.

Yeah... and that is just sad.

OK, seriously here, I'm in no way opposed to taking a different look at how children are raised, and I'm certainly opposed to smacking kids around as a method of discipline, but there are way too many kids that never learn to sit still and pay attention in class because their parents are too concerned that their self-esteem will be permanently ruined if they are told to mind their manners.

The fact that you tried to apply politcial terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to the issue of raising children makes me laugh.

Especially since you also tried to make a generalization about them both.

I think he was kidding...

Fellas, let's all take us a deep breath. Okay, now, feel better? Now, reach your hand down and dig deep into your ass. Get real down in there, don't be afraid. You can wash your hands after you're done. Now, feel around for a bit. You feel that bit of cloth peeking out from the darker depths? Grab hold of it and yank that motherfucker right out. Now take those granny panties and toss them in the trash, unless you're Decka, in which case you just doubled the amount of clothing you own.

There now! I bet that just took a whole load off. Now smoke you a bowl and when you come back, let's all just lighten up a bit, mm'kay?

I see nothing wrong with spanking a kids bare bottom. If you think about it, what else are they afraid of? nothing. 4 year old girls can be the most fearless people in the world believe it or not. I have spanked my daughter a few times, and now its to the point where just the threat of a spanking will stop her from acting up when I dont want her to. The key to this is that you cant make hollow threats, if you threaten to spank them if they dont stop acting a certain way, and they dont stop, you must carry through, other wise you have lost. And it cant be some little pat through the pants, it has to be over the knee bare bottom that leaves a red hand print. you dont want to injure them, you just want it to sting for a little while

The fact that you tried to apply politcial terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to the issue of raising children makes me laugh.

Especially since you also tried to make a generalization about them both.

Yeah, back in the original semi-joking post. I certainly wouldn't make broad generalizations about the parenting habits of liberals and conservatives. That would be silly.

Conservatives tend to subscribe to the "strict father" ideology because it presupposes that everyone is born wicked and needs a strict hand to force them to behave.

Conversely, Progressives believe that people are basiclly good and merely need to have those good traits nurtured and encouraged in order to get them to behave.

I think he was kidding...

I don't. If he was, then he needs to learn to communicate better.

I don't. If he was, then he needs to learn to communicate better.
You have a weak sensor for finding humor. It's not his problem, it's yours.

Insincere Worm.

Well that says it all...