Historical Question for Righties

Dang. Even with the recession my family is better off today than in the 1990's. By your reasoning we can clearly come to the conclusion that the best years of America must have been 1929-1941. No, you see it doesn't work that way.

 

LOL.

USA never said hello to Marx. Leave to say that nonsense without any basis.

 

Then why don't you use your BA in history, and disprove what I said. I'm still waiting.

 

Somewhere on your task bar you'll find the 'time and date'. Click on that. A window will open. At the bottom of the window is a command, in blue usually, it says; 'Change time and date settings' Click on that. A new window will open. Click on the button that says, 'change date and time'. Change the date to read '2012'. There...now you should be 'up to date'.

 

You're "sick to death of of conservative revisionist history and outright lies". I'm sick to death of all these one-sided, sweeping proclamations to the effect that "our side" is our nation's only hope, while "your side" is evil incarnate and will surely destroy our nation. That's not reality - it's just partisan bs. Most people in this country seem to think it impossible that the other side could possess any worthwhile or much needed qualities. They also seem to think that their own side is pure and offers no poison.

The truth is, both sides of the Left-Right rift distort history and lie. Both classical liberalism (modern conservatism) and modern liberalism (progressivism) have contributed both positively and negatively to the development of our society. Both have important contributions to make in the pursuit of a free, just, and prosperous future. This is in spite of the fact that they are polar opposites when it comes to defining the best structure for the government/individual relationship. But, both also have aspects that have proven counterproductive at least, and downright evil at worst.

Citizens meeting together to "discuss" things of political concern to themselves and their nation would do well to do a little personal study in the history and content of the fundamental ideas of 18th and 19th century classical and modern liberalism and how they have evolved into the liberal/conservative dichotomy we have today. It is these two antagonists that are behind nearly all of the Left vs. Right civil war, and it's these two historical ideologies that constitute the majority of political battles that rage around us each day. One side isn't "good" and the other "evil". Instead, both are a mixture of the two; at least in terms of good and bad outcomes of their particular philosophies of governance. Both sides bring many good and valuable resources to the table - unfortunately, both also bring many lethal ones as well.

 

And above is the best post on the thread so far.

 

Could you give me just one example of a positive contribution of progressivism?

 

Food labels.

10 char.

 

Indeed you are correct!!

 

So...as the stanchion for the legitimacy of progressivism...you've come up with food labels.

Fail.

 

It just makes more sense to say that "good" has come from all sides of American thought. To say/imply that only ONE side has all of the best answers isn't reasonable.

 

Help me with this part, there was this study done by I want to say a North Dakota (Maybe South Dakota), where apparently there was all these problems as to what went into the food. IE, Narcotics in drugs when it said there was none.

Or perhaps if you don't mind not knowing what you eat, I could say not getting beaten by someone for falling asleep, reduced work hours, building code regulations, trying to get rid of corruption, etc.

 

No,,, but many rightwingers believe it's still the 1950s.

 

Non sequitur. Your challenge is to demonstrate how progressivism was responsible for solving this issue, as it appears to merely be common sense.

Who put forth the bill? Who voted for it?

Again I say: you've offered, as your keystone to defend progressivism...food labels.

 

Yes the acts of progressivism had the aim of degrading the Constitution as we see Obama trying to do today with his attacks of religion.

When president Wilson took charge of the aftermath of WWI and setup the League of Nations and then demanded that the German people be punished for the actions of their leaders the stage was set for a global depression and the rise of Hitler. Without Wilson's punitive policies toward Germany after WWI their might have been a recession in place of the great depression and there wounld have been no WWII. 50m dead, thanks to Wilson and progressivism.

Margret Sanger, the poster whore of progressive women wanted to sterilize most black women because she wanted to sterilize all people that she thought were idiots. Planned Parenthood is still doing the work of keeping the Black and poor population down.

FDR hurt the USA more than he helped with his policies. Federal agents came to my father's farm when he was a kid and killed all of their live stock and made his family burn the cattle and pigs to help create demand for meat on the hoof. That meant that his family had no money and after that they had less food.

 

This happened. This proffesor did something progressive.

Or are you refering to the act TR passed, the pure food and drug act?

 

Progressivism is the abandonment of the rights of the individual for the security do the collective. The statement was accurate.

 

I'm certainly not writing a book in an Internet forum for you. But if you must have the facts, and if your not too lazy to read, I will direct you here http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v24n6/chapman.pdf He was undoubtedly one of the worst civil rights presidents of all time. Nether did he care for the constitution. I hate arguing recognized fact to willfully ignorant people.

I want your history books isbn #. I want to read it for myself. I will then either disprove your text or throw the information you refused to acknowlege in your face. So let's see the isbn #.

 

Why is it difficult to understand that Politicians from ANY party, Who's primary interests are reelection and self aggrandizing, would pass laws that have horrible unintended consequences in later years?

 

I don't know but we have some undereducated and ill-read people who think their opinions on what they don't know are factually accurate and I'm beginning to get tired of arguing the obvious.

 

That's the myth anyway. It's only marginally justified because of technical developments. It really depends on who you're talking about.

Placed in a realistic perspective, rather than an historical one, we can easily say that most people were systematically denied the full benefits of technological and economic progress by the prevailing system and organizational structure. While many classes of society were materially better off than they were a century before, they were losing ground from a relative standpoint. Relative to their society, many people were worse off in the late 19th century than the late 18th. It really depends on who we're talking about.

The problem here is that people find it difficult to distinguish technological progress (and the resulting material benefits) from systemic political regression (and the resulting relative decline in power). Moreover, the situation of these workers would have been much worse off had they not organized and fought for improved conditions--if the free market had been left alone, they would have been far worse off than what in practice actually occurred.

Incorrect. Corporations do not need to be publicly traded. I can tell you that from personal experience.

They inherently harm the natural rights of others, even if their political rights might be respected.

 

One example: Liberalism's concern for the liberty of the larger society in distinction to conservatism's focus on individual liberty was instrumental in ending segregation in the south.

Look, I know your objections to progressivism ("modern liberalism"). I share them, believe me - especially today as we witness a fairly irresponsible push to implement government as the solution to every social ill. But, as I see it, it isn't a bad thing to have in operation the balancing forces of concern for the liberty of the individual on the one hand, with concern for the liberty (which includes opportunity) and health of the overall society, which includes the disadvantaged. On the one hand, I'm a huge fan of individualism and a huge cynic when it comes to big, interventionist government. But I'm also a realist and can't deny that interventionism is sometime just what the doctor ordered, having performed some very positive services to our nation that probably wouldn't have been performed otherwise. When the popular perspective swings GENTLY back and forth from Left to Right to Left to ... we seem to enjoy both the fruits, and unfortunately the poisonous residues of both ideologies in an overall beneficial manner that wouldn't be realized by either perspective alone. One such benefit is that they tend to hold each other in check so as to not go off the ideological deep end in either direction. IMO, that's definitely a health situation.

 

No no no Lex, don't compare the average condition of Americans before industry in the early 20th century to the past. You should compare the conditions of today to the industrial practices of the 20th century. ... ... ... ... Sorry, I'm not falling for it. The average American citizen then was better off than any time before the era. This is unarguable and tears the socialist fallacy of workers abuse to peaces by adding context to the mix.

 

Alrighty then. It's about time. My ISBN#: 0-321-19447-0.

And your source:

Everyone was racist at this time, singling him out, is just being rude to the guy.

This part, there actually was a little bit of truth to this. Apparently a proffesor managed to find out what food was in food. It was intreseting to find out how bad it was.

This was his idelgoy, big business was here to stay, but if it was good, then it stayed. Taft, and Wilson would increase the cases, and other economic probelms also occured under them.

 

I've never seen anyone complain about that.

You mean the one that Upton Sinclair himself opposed because it passed the cost of inspection on to taxpayers?

The true Axis of Evil right there.