quote Originally posted by maryjane: Nearly 30,000 posts, and I have never felt the need to bring anyone's family members into any reply, and there has always--till now, been an "understood" protocol here at PFF that family members were "off-limits".

A sign of the times i think. Lots of lines have been crossed lately, not just around here but it spills over into online-life too.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Perhaps--but I'll not do it under any circumstances.

Fixed it for you.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Ah, so's your old man. (another old expression) You have nothing interesting to say that I want to hear, so p*ss off. (same meaning, different expressions)

So, I take it, you disagree with all of my comments regarding this subject of illegal wiretapping?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Too bad, but yeah--they screwed the pooch as far as ever again being seen as relevant--not to mention going to prison if convicted. Break the law--do the time. A crook is a crook is a crook.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: RayB is referring to Louisiana mostly, and he is correct. Not only does corruption run rampant there, they openly admit it and even brag about it. I lived there from 1978-1995--thru the Edwin Edwards years. That state has had, and continues to have serious problems regarding bribery, and graft. My youngest son still lives in Baton Rouge and tells me nothing has changed since I was there.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Regardless of the laws being violated re illegal wiretapping, some Senators and Congressmen/women are members of committees entrusted with very sensitive National Security information. I do not know if Sen Landreu is on one of them or not, but any information gathered by covert action from a member of congress on one of these oversight panels, has serious national security implications. Regarding the constitution--if it's to be changed, then do so by legal means via amendments as it was intended to be. Don't skirt the document and throw it into SCOTUS for constitutionality rulings.

quote Originally posted by maryjane:As I stated already, there are many reasons, other than the obvious criminal aspects of this event that should raise great cause for concern. Altho I firmly believe in as transparent a government as possible, I do not think the general public has a right or need to know certain details involving National Security, Secret Service protection, most personal family information about officials, personal finance other than what is required to be divulged by law, personal banking information, including pin #s, and, everyday communications via telephone or even email. All of these could have been compromised had this been a successful 'bugging' (assuming that was the intention). Even govt officials have a right to a certain degree of privacy, just as the rest of us do. That's the problem with even legal wiretapping--it gathers ALL information available thru that media of communication. There's just no upside to this at all.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound:

Sorry for the long read. Just so you know, I type slow (40 39 minutes a word). It took me a lot longer to type it.

quote [b]Originally posted by Wolfhound: Cliffw, What American values are you speaking of ? What are you calling a progessive ?. What failure are you talking about 100 yrs ago?

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Maybe this will answer the questions above.

The gospel according to Glenn Beck, ?
Though I would not call him a partisan source some will. He is not gonna convince anybody of anything. He doesn't try to. Understandably, some will not be receptive to his views with just a snipit.
I watch Glenn Beck. I like him as do many other people. He is the second most favorite TV personality in America, second to Oprah. Glenn Beck thinks. He also tests his thoughts. He presents the results with supportive reasoning. Measurable reasoning. Verifiable reasoning. I have seen him slam a repulsivecan just as he would a dumbocrat.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: What are you calling a progessive ?.

I'll start here Coy.
I would like to think that I heard the term Progressive in high school. Long time ago. I have heard it though before Glenn Beck raised the awareness. I consider myself not a democrat nor a republican. Nor an independent. I don't care what any of those terms mean. I like to think of myself as an educated voter (although the educated part is up for debate, ). Anyways, I listen to the candidates. I watched a Democratic Presidential debate and did hear Hillary Clinton say that she considers her self a "modern day Progressive", that she would rather be thought of as one. Glenn Beck did use the sound bite of her saying that to support his beliefs but no matter. Hillary clearly gave the word Progressive definition above the word Democrat.
Obama was also caught on tape saying "To my Progressive friends in Congress and to my Republican friends in Congress ...", and he was also caught on tape saying "I am glad to be back in Wisconsin. The birthplace of the Progressive movement".
So, clearly there is such a thing as a Progressive. Looking back in history, as Glenn Beck points out, there have been other Progressive Presidents. Woodrow Wilson being one (one whom Glenn Beck will tell you he thought was a wonderful President) and Theodore Roosevelt being another. No doubt that many other Progressive candidates have existed, as does the ideology. It is also an ideology which is aggressive.
So, what do I call a Progressive ? History is a good thing.
The great challenge of democracy, as the Founders understood it, was to restrict and structure the government to secure the rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence — preventing tyranny while preserving liberty. The solution was to create a strong, energetic government of limited authority. Its powers were enumerated in a written constitution, separated into functions and responsibilities and further divided between national and state governments in a system of federalism. The result was a framework of limited government and a vast sphere of freedom, leaving ample room for republican self-government.

Progressives viewed the Constitution as a dusty 18th-century plan unsuited for the modern day. Its basic mechanisms were obsolete and inefficient; it was a reactionary document, designed to stifle change. They believed that just as science and reason had brought technological changes and new methods of study to the physical world, they would also bring great improvements to politics and society. For this to be possible, however, government could not be restricted to securing a few natural rights or exercising certain limited powers. Instead, government must become dynamic, constantly changing and growing to pursue the ceaseless objective of progress.

The progressive movement — under a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, and then a Democratic one, Woodrow Wilson — set forth a platform for modern liberalism to refound America according to ideas that were alien to the original Founders. “Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence,” Wilson wrote in 1912. “All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”
I found the above quote/linky an apt summarization of other research of interest that I have done. Roosevelt and Wilson set forth a foundation to refound America. Obama was touting a fundamental transformation of America five days before the election. The Constitution is not a dusty old document (as mentioned in long linky), nor is it one which can be reinterpreted as Obama thinks it can.
Forget what I think a Progressive is. Let's see what it's statement of core values is. Interesting enough is that the Progressive movement does not have a declaration of it's core values. A platform if you wish. Scandalous to say the least. So we are left to interpret them. Which I interpret as more governmental control and powers. That government is the answer. That the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not applicable. Fine, if one wishes to believe that. Campaign on those principles and see how far you get.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: What American values are you speaking of ?

Besides the values of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ? Theodore Roosevelt actually called for a second set of Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights to go around the Constitution. To keep from having to amend it, which he knew he couldn't do. This second set of bill of rights was an economic one. Why ?
How 'bout the values of redistribution of wealth ? The socialistic values of the Progressives ? I found this core belief on a platform of one organizational chapter.

quote # Equality in well-being Basic economic rights for all : Secure jobs at living wages; decent housing; adequate food and clothing; universal health care; quality education; a safe, clean environment; a progressive tax system; sustainable, safe food production based upon family farms and farm cooperatives; and protection from economic insecurity caused by old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

Sounds just like an economic bill of rights that Roosevelt proposed, no ? Read my quote above again. Who decides what the living wage is ? Government deciding how much you will make. What the hell is that nonsense ? They can only do that if they are paying us. Oh wait. They can. By taking it from the rich(er).
Decent housing ? Again, the government deciding what is decent housing of which you are entitled to. They can only do that if they are providing that. Oh wait. They can. By taking from the rich(er).
The list goes on and on. The government can not even balance a check book. It builds $700.00 toilet seats. And we want it managing an economic bill of rights, ? Yes, the list goes on. They all involve government interference with our lives. Where as, the original Bill of Rights kept government out of our lives. Which has worked for 234 years, !
Those are the values of which I speak that are not shared with America. The values which steal freedom.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: What failure are you talking about 100 yrs ago?

Not failure. Failures.
First though, let me tell you about some ?success's? that they have had. After all, I did research. They were involved in women's suffrage. The right of women to vote. They were also involved with abolitionism. The freeing of the slaves. The Progressives also popped up before the Civil War and pushed for social activists to reform working conditions, and humanize the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners.
However, their failures include ... well, let's just start with money. They established the Federal Reserve, taking us off of the gold standard. Creating a central bank, the Federal Reserve. A central bank of which we had been warned against by one or more of our founding fathers. A central bank which has never been audited. One of which the citizens have no control over as far as votes and transparency. One which controls your bank like god.
How is that a failure ? It is blamed for the Great Depression. By not releasing money quick enough when the panic came. (actually my facts are true here but maybe slightly inaccurate.) It was the Feds policies which caused banks to fail with the housing industry, which crashed our economy. It is now the Feds policy to print money. I don't think so, says cliffw.
Keeping with the money theme, they also started the Income Tax system. It is still called the Progressive Income Tax law. It's own system is so misunderstood complex that even the head of the governmental body which oversees it, can not understand it. He had to use Turbo Tax and he still did not pay his taxes. If there ever was a system to be milked, it would be our income tax system. But, you gotta have money to milk it.
Progressives were also responsible for Prohibition. Wow ! That was a big victory. A Constitutional Amendment. We all know how well that turned out. They were also the ones who created the Food and Drug Administration. The guys who made drugs illegal. We all know how well the war on drugs was a resounding success, .
They also got us into WWI. Campaigning that it will be the "end of all wars". We all know how well that worked out. It lead to the League Of Nations, the failed body which led to the United Nations. We all know how well they are working out. The League Of Nations gave rise to Nazism.

This is a good read.
'Ya know, I much think that the Progressives are as such an entity as the Masons. The Free Masons. Secretive. I am not knocking a Free Mason belief. How can I ? It's secretive.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-01-2010).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Not exactly. Progressive Dumbocrats chair, .... my figures are not accurate (can't find them) ...., more than half the committees in both the House and the Senate. If they are a minority they hold power over the majority.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: They are *headed* by progressives. I think the number was 11 out of 15?. Doesn't necessarily mean that all of the Dems on that committee are progressives. At least we can hope.

Uh ugh, not you, ?
First off, 11 out of 15 is wrong. The House has 22 committees and four special committees. The Senate has 20 committees and for sure some special committees. The committee heads are voted in. They were voted in by Progressive members. There ain't no room for hope.

I am still thinking.
Hmm ....

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: What failure are you talking about 100 yrs ago?

I forgot the most glaring failure of all, .
Universal Health Care

quote linky The campaign for some form of universal government-funded health care has stretched for nearly a century in the US On several occasions, advocates believed they were on the verge of success; yet each time they faced defeat. The evolution of these efforts and the reasons for their failure make for an intriguing lesson in American history, ideology, and character.

The above is a four page read. Very informative both pro and con. However, socialistic health care has been voted down time after time. It is clear that the American people don't want it and never did. Yet, the Progressives say we do.

Let me recap my hatred of Progressives. Universal health care has failed for 100 years. Never have the people demanded it yet, the Progressives know better than we do. They take it upon themselves to decide what we want. They have an agenda of which they think is the be all of end all. Their agenda is so far contrary to the principles our great country was founded upon, they inspire me with hate.
Any ideology can have good ideas. Just as the Progressives helped with women suffrage, the freeing of the slaves, and a few other needed improvements for our country. However, the Progressives feel a need for control. Control and more control.
Eh .... , I'll stop now before this becomes another long read.