Are you willing to sacrifice American exceptionalism for more international equality?

Let's assume that the goal of progressives is actually to establish world peace, more equality in standards of living, and to save the earth from human destruction. Not that I actually believe that these are the primary goals of these control freaks, because I've seen plenty of evidence that points to the contrary. But, we're assuming here that they actually have noble intentions.

Are you, as individuals, willing to sacrifice your standard of living for these goals? Because that is exactly the outcome of the progressive agenda that controls both parties in America. From the progressive war on industry, deficit spending that put us in a massive hole of debt, to the "liberation" of other peoples using shock and awe from the skies, these are progressive motives. If you want to see the opposite of the progressive agenda, look to Dr. Ron Paul.

Are you willing to lower your standards for the sake of humanity? Most democrats seem to just complain that you don't have enough money, or that the poor in America are starving in the streets. Most republicans seem to be in denial that their representatives are almost all progressives.

You all need to stop being so greedy, and listen to Barack Obama:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,”

 

I believe a nation should live to whatever standards its own innovative abilities and natural resources allows. Some will do well. Other people are on the low end of the intelligence scale and will do `worse,` although happiness is not necessarily attributed solely to having `things.`

In some areas of the world people are as primitive as you can imagine and seem to be quite content with their existence. It isn't until the liberal, full of good intentions, arrives in their village in an attempt to modernize them that they are left miserable and in poverty. If a New Guinea tribe is happy in marching through their jungle hunting wild pig with spears, it isn't our place to build them a city they aren't capable of running and thus leaving them to wallow in filth, misery and despair.

 

You act like we have a choice.

Ultimately, it's not going to be a matter of the government restricting us. It's a matter of globalization.

Even as technology improves, certain luxuries we have will eventually become less affordable. Gas isn't going to be relatively cheap forever.

Even if we drilled and refined to our hearts' content, the rising demand for fossil fuels will drive the price up to a point where more efficient living will be necessary.

So, even if progressivism were to completely die out and the global market became as free as possible, we'd still eventually face the need to live less decadently.

That being said, I do side with the market approach more often than with the government one.

 

That is also the goal of American free market capitalists, but coming at it from an entirely different perspective. Globalisation means exporting good American jobs overseas and getting little in return except cheaper goods consumers increasingly go into debt for. The whole system is propped up by the false perception that THE reliable currency in the world is the U.S. Dollar, but when the inevitable fiscal meltdown occurs the dollar's value will go into free-fall and all Americans will be a lot poorer.

American citizens, American companies and American governments are all living on credit and at some point their accounts are going to be called. The end result will be that American exceptionalism will be sacrificed for more international equality in the inevitable free market adjustment.

 

I hate to say this to anyone especialy who supports Ron Paul, but I think you have no clue what you're talking about, mostly because of the terms you use - catch phrases like "progressives" from the two party circus on the mass media...

 

Nice argument. You never know what you're talking about, so I won't take it personally. Do you have problems with words that describe ideologies? Everyone else in the thread seems to understand what I'm talking about.

Progressives = international communists who team up with global corporations.

 

That would be a corporatist, globalist, or internationalist.

The closest thing to progressive in this discussion involves things like government limits on consumption or environmental regulations with the intention of inducing less consumption.

 

Could you define "American exceptionalism" ?

 

Yes, I could just call them globalists but they all go hand in hand. I'm talking about the progressive leaders, not what the general public thinks that progressives support.

The globalists partner up with the largest corporations and use the environmental/other regulations and tax exemptions to kill off the competition, while granting their partners immunity. See Obamacare, GE, the bailouts, the war on coal, etc.

 

Well, apparently we have NOT been living "within our natural resources!"

and, as you state, although we, as a people, have more "things" then any other people in the world, we have less health, less security, more crime, and less understanding and compassion than mostly anyone.

We are prejudice, we pride ourselves on our SELF annointed exceptionalism, and we stay back, basking in our arrogance, while other nations pass us by in most measures of development (like health care, education, life expectation).

I didn't think that this thread was about wetherwe should force our standards on other people, but rather wether we should stop, take a look around, and see if our egocentrism and OUR way of life made us really happy and was constructive foe oes, but also for US.

 

Actually this thread was just a jab at democrats who cry all day about not having enough money for more consumerism when they're supposed to be champions of a green earth. And a jab about how the democrats are just as responsible for our "liberating" wars. And a jab about republicans not realizing that most of their leaders are globalists.

And at this point in the thread, I was going into how the globalists/progressives are tied at the hip with global corporations and only use their regulations to destroy the competition.

Also, here's foreign aid for you:

 

Sure we can, as soon as we clean house in 2012, sweep out the garbage that is stealing our tax dollars, reclaim our Constitutional Republic, America can live prosperous again! Let Obama go live in those foreign countries in his own hut, however I dare believe he would ever do that himself, like so many other progressives, their talk is for others not them!

 

It's all about big government, big corporate control. Sharing totalitarian power over the world. Call them progressives, call them globalists, call them Communists or Fascists. Progressive voters are the ones who keep on handing power over to bureaucracies at higher levels, so they are the ones ensuring this outcome.

There is no free trade. These trade "agreements" are set up for special interests, just like the WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and certain policies from the UN. Why do you think that so many "progressives" are members of the globalist CFR, which includes leaders from 200 global corporations? If you want to fight the corporatism, progressive policies are not going to get you anywhere.

 

While I agree that free trade agreements are often quite different from being supportive of free trade, I'm not really sure what can be done about that.

I suppose it would be possible to vote in only Ron Paul types, but even then, other countries are still going to make their deals with corporations.

The game is rigged in terms of limiting competition. The progressives really aren't that bad compared to corporatists. Progressives are driven by their perception of public interest. Corporatists are just driven by greed.

Granted, I will agree that a lot of progressives are corporatists in disguise.

 

Should Germany, Sweden, Great Britain or any of the other industrialized nations of Western Europe lowetr their living standards to match those of the PIIGS in the name of European equality? I doubt they would ber willing to do that.

 

Since I keep my thermostat at 80 in the summer and on 60 in the winter, and can't afford to fix my 2000 Ford Expedition with 186K miles on it, I guess the only thing keeping me from being a liberal socialist like Obama is that I do try to eat when I am hungry and don't starve myself or my family in order to align with those starving in other countries.

I have to wonder what the thermostat is set at in the White House, why Obama travels frequently in huge gas guzzling cars/SUVs/jets and feeds his family only the best food available?

 

If the Western World do not wish completely destruction and disappearing it must support America as Superpower. If America fail than it place will be immediately taken by China or some alliance of BRICS countries and Islamic World.

Internationalism is a lie and politically correct blah-blah for completely idiots!Unfortunately already twenty years we share our pie with so-called developed countries. Also, where are thanks of those developed countries we helped to be more industrialized? Who said us "Thank You"?

No one!

 

Very simple answer: no.

 

I think far too many people would be on board with this. Personally, I would do the opposite. I would rather sacrifice more equality for greater exceptionalism. Equality is highly overrated. Anything other than equality of basic opportunity is a waste of time. It contradicts human nature, and any effort to impliment it on a grand scale is just going to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off. Because all you're really doing is taking away their freedoms.

 

You wouldn't happen to also be named Americann, would you?

 

Thanks for the replies, people. I don't claim to have all of the answers for the modern world of entangled debts, trade, and common goals for sustainability. The problem is that I do not think that internationalists always have the intentions that they proclaim. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sometimes I want to save the earth and all of its inhabitants, and sometimes I just don't care.

 

It would make more sense to sacrifice other countries and simply keep our exceptionalism.

 

That would be like trading bread for cake when one has forgotten how to raise dough.

 

That would make sense in some ways if it was actually possible, but it's not.

The gradual fall of Europe's colonial empires proved that.

Our own version of imperialism is proving to be unsustainable as well.