[DanDaMan]

My fellow Americans, I suggest you watch Glenn Beck this Friday to learn the what progressives have historically given us!
It should be a good eye opening broadcast!

[JohnRawls]

Talk about misleading name for a topic ....................

What have progressive people given to america ? Well besides every american invention , they have also given the Constitution ( They were liberals back then ) , removal of slavery ( Liberal idea ) and many many other things you contribute to the right wing now.

You see , right = conservatives = they conserve the ideas , Liberal = Progressive = they progress development of new ideas .

The ideas you think of right now , were Liberal back in the day , so its like saying let's stop thinking and live by old ideas all the time .

If you had done that , you would be living under the queen of England right about now .

[DanDaMan]

The King was very LIBERAL with his powers.
Obama is implementing a very LIBERAL government that will nanny us from cradle to grave.

Politics is about what the government DOES.
Do not forget that.

[JohnRawls]

King was liberal ? Most king were very conservative who worried about their position of power . So , not really .
Back in the day , the founding fathers were Liberals .

[DanDaMan]

King was liberal ? Most king were very conservative who worried about their position of power . So , not really .
Back in the day , the founding fathers were Liberals .

You are falling into the trap of leftist DOGMA!
Keep to the APPLICATION of power and the definitions of the words. Keep to the TRUTH and ignore dogma!

Did the King APPLY a liberal government tyranny that reached across the Atlantic? Yes.
Did he want to conserve his totalitarian government? Yes.
Did the founding fathers want a more LIBERAL dose of government to exceed the Kings? No.
The founding fathers went to war to free themselves from a government that LIBERALLY taxed them and controlled them.

Always weigh government by what it DOES. Not what it says or its reasoning behind it.

[JohnRawls]

YOu severely contradict your words DanDaMan , here you say

Did the King APPLY a liberal government tyranny that reached across the Atlantic? Yes.
Did he want to conserve his totalitarian government? Yes.
Did the founding fathers want a more LIBERAL dose of government to exceed the Kings? No.
The founding fathers went to war to free themselves from a government that LIBERALLY taxed them and controlled them.

1st. There is no such thing as liberal government tyranny . Tyranny is just tyranny. Liberal by definition is progressive , open to new ideas . So he was open to new ideas tyranny ?
2nd. You said he wanted to conserve his power . That is exactly what conservatives do , they conserve old traditions . Most monarch were rightist in Nature .
3rd. Founding father DID want a liberal government . AGain DanDaMan , Liberal means progressive and open to new ideas . The constitution was progressive and open to new ideas , such as the Rights of citizens , the Rights to own property etc .
4th. The government didn't Liberally tax them . There is no such thing as liberal tax . The government taxed them as much as it needed to tax , but you didn't like it and rebelled . Actually your founding fathers were Okay with taxes , they were just against no representation in the parlament of Englang . Hence 'No Representation means no Taxation' saying comes from that time . But the conservative king didn't want to give any power to the colonies so the war started .

[DanDaMan]

1st. There is no such thing as liberal government tyranny . Tyranny is just tyranny. Liberal by definition is progressive , open to new ideas . So he was open to new ideas tyranny ?
2nd. You said he wanted to conserve his power . That is exactly what conservatives do , they conserve old traditions . Most monarch were rightist in Nature .
3rd. Founding father DID want a liberal government . AGain DanDaMan , Liberal means progressive and open to new ideas . The constitution was progressive and open to new ideas , such as the Rights of citizens , the Rights to own property etc .
4th. The government didn't Liberally tax them . There is no such thing as liberal tax . The government taxed them as much as it needed to tax , but you didn't like it and rebelled . Actually your founding fathers were Okay with taxes , they were just against no representation in the parlament of Englang . Hence 'No Representation means no Taxation' saying comes from that time . But the conservative king didn't want to give any power to the colonies so the war started .

What is meant when I say I pay my employees liberally or hand out a liberal Christmas bonus?

It means I give out a lot. The money flows from me.
That is the definition of LIBERAL.

What you are doing is falling away from the definitive meaning...

big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

and embracing the dynamic definition perverted by political DOGMA of the day.

You need to pick a truthful definition based on fact and ignore fanatical dogmatic reasoning!

[JohnRawls]

'Goes and shoots himself leaving a note behind' .

The Note Says

Do not argue with DanDaMan , he will make you insane by his idiotic logic

[DanDaMan]

I am having a certain amount of fun at your expense, John.
The argument I am giving you is identical to what I often hear with regard to my belief in God.

That honesty aside, I am still correct in my position.

[kingbee]

'Goes and shoots himself leaving a note behind' .

That honesty aside, I am still correct in my position.

You need to pick a truthful definition based on fact and ignore fanatical dogmatic reasoning!

[Caveat Lector]

All I see in this little debate is the simple fact of 'no common core of experience' in communication symbols. I seems, "liberal" means to Dan something disimilar to what it may mean to John. Why not forgo the arguement of what a word means and get to the idea, Dan isn't thinking "Thomas Jefferson" when he writes "Liberal" or "Progressive", he's thinking "Obama" or "Pelosi". After that, I might question why he appears to me as using some sort of implied 'fear tactic' in what he writes; and why he writes "historically" when thinking of modern liberals and progressives.

[SecretSquirrel]

Dan is a troll who idolizes Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is very often correct, though he has been successfully turned into a figure of fun by the statist controlled media just like Sarah Palin. However you must remember that Dan is not affiliated with Glen Beck, and thrives on conflict on the boards.

To Dan: Is there a way I can catch this broadcast? I dont have a television. Maybe you could tivo it and put it on youtube and post it here?

[Caveat Lector]

I'd like to catch it if youtube is an option... all I have is a radio.

[DanDaMan]

All I see in this little debate is the simple fact of 'no common core of experience' in communication symbols. I seems, "liberal" means to Dan something disimilar to what it may mean to John. Why not forgo the arguement of what a word means and get to the idea, Dan isn't thinking "Thomas Jefferson" when he writes "Liberal" or "Progressive", he's thinking "Obama" or "Pelosi".

Thank you!
Timing is what makes my assertion possible.


Secret, YouTube has a "Glenn Beck Channel" where you can watch him.
Today's show was educational on the Progressive movement within the DNC.

[Caveat Lector]

What about the Progressive movement in the Republican party?

[SecretSquirrel]

Dan does the youtube channel put the new shows up on the same day?

BTW, I hope you are celebrating the victory of rationality over the statist political machine in MA today

What about the Progressive movement in the Republican party?

If Dan is really a fan of Glenn Beck I doubt he is a republican. Beck is barely a republican already, if it wasn't for his rejection of drug legalisation he would be a libertarian. He is probably the strongest asset to the libertarian movement in the media as he reaches so many people through his radio and tv programmes. His shows raise awareness of government malfeasance in the population at large

[Caveat Lector]

if it wasn't for his rejection of drug legalisation

Is that to say Libertarians in general support the illegalization of drugs? I don't think I'm correctly understanding the above quote.

[SecretSquirrel]

Libertarians are for legalisation of drugs. Glenn Beck, as a former junkie and alcoholic (which he admits was a rough time in his life) is not ready to accept the necessity of legalising drugs

[Caveat Lector]

if it wasn't for his rejection of drug legalisation

I read that word as "legistlation".

My fail.

[DanDaMan]

If Dan is really a fan of Glenn Beck I doubt he is a republican. Beck is barely a republican already, if it wasn't for his rejection of drug legalisation he would be a libertarian.

I suspect Glenn is not a Republican because the Republican party is overrun by Progressives and other bad politicians. I would put it to you that Glenn's religious side and common sense would define him as a classic Republican. He just cannot, in good conscience, associate himself with a party that has gone bad.

Unlike the Penn quote you posted, Glenn can competently pick a best method for society and teach it. (I'm not implying he would enforce it though. That is fascist and not Christian.)


Why I do not call myself a Libertarian... True Libertarians seem to place virtue in not condemning bad behavior so they therefore cannot be condemned themselves. They are just Modern Liberals of the right.... incompetent judges of right from wrong and best from worst.