Skip to comments.Exposing America's Enemies (Part 2): Communist Progressive Democrats
Posted on 05/23/2006 8:41:29 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Exposing America's Enemies (Part 2): Communist Progressive Democrats Linda Kimball
From Exposing Americas Enemies: the Social Justice Seeking Communist Left, comes this relevant quote, For over forty years the New Left has been waging a Gramscian quiet revolution for the overthrow of Americas Constitution, Rule of Law, sovereignty, and our way of life. Today the subversives call themselves liberals, progressives, and Democrats (and) as David Horowitz attested to (the majority are) social justice seeking communists. The Democratic Party is very close to being the (Communist-controlled Progressive) party of Henry Wallace the vast bulk of the American Left is a communist left. (How Marxism Dominates the Left, Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com, June 1, 2005)
The Backbone Campaign is a communist front group in the left's vast interconnected matrix of revolutionary groups. On its website it declares its goal is to: empower citizens to nominate, comment on, and rate progressive leaders to serve as a virtual Progressive Parallel Administration we are not content running campaigns, but preparing to run the country. (http://www.backbonecampaign.org/cabinet/ )
Chief among Backbone Campaign sponsoring organizations is the Progressive Democrats of America, who are committed to: dismantling the military industrial complex. (ibid)
The Progressive Caucus is made up of the most Far-Left members of Congress and best represents the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. (Radical Road Maps, James H. Hansen, p. 186) Progressive Democrats are responsible for installing Howard Dean as Democratic National Chairman. In Feb. 2005, Dean was quoted by U.S. News and World Report as exclaiming: I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for. Dean's power base, according to DiscoverTheNetwork.org, are a bunch of campus communists. The Progressive Caucus will be the focus of this article.
Social Justice is Communism
Judging from the adolescent name-calling and howls of protest which my previous article elicited from Progressive groups such as the Democratic Underground, it is obvious that the enraged howlers have no idea of what it really means for one to be a seeker of social justice. Either that or they really do know but are deceivers of the first magnitude.
Be that as it may, some clarification and definition of the termssocial justice and communism-- is in order before proceeding on to the issue of Progressive Democrats.
To most Americans, communism means the Kremlin, gulags, killing fields, and Maos brutal Red Guard. These things though were not the essence of communism. They were the visible manifestations of inhumane power and its consequences, all of which resulted when social justice seekers acquired total control to remake society and man.
The essence of communism is social justice, or justice in the social sphere. This is code for the elimination of poverty, of suffering, and of all differences between humans that erect walls between people. Fundamentally, social justice is a process of elimination that results in sameness (egalitarianism). When social justice seekers speak of the need for equality, what theyre really calling for is sameness.
However, the attributes which make people different from each other and which social justice seekers are determined to eliminate, are the product of human nature and of freely made choices. For instance, some people are ambitious and hard-working while others are indolent and lazy and may willfully choose to live out of the pockets of the former.
Its the positive aspects of human nature that make a society dynamic. Dynamism is the animating force behind Americas greatness--her productivity, excellence, creativity, free markets, etc. In eliminating human differences, social justice seekers kill all of this, and as they did in the former Soviet Union, leave behind a smoking ruin haunted by despairing cookie-cutter claymation beings.
In speaking of the social justice process of elimination, Balint Vazsonyi remarked, Prophets of social justicecommunists, whether by that name or any other namefocus on who should have less. Because they have nothing to give, they can only take away. First, they take away opportunity. Next, they take away possessions. In the end, they have to take away life itself. (Americas 30 Years War, Balint Vazsonyi, p. 59)
The America of our Founders simply cannot coexist with the Search for Social Justice. For instance, as designed by our Founders, the Rule of Law exists to guarantee that unequal (different) people can have individual liberty, rights and possessionsincluding land ownership, which social justice seekers view as the original sin. Social justice demands that those who possess more of anything have it taken away from those who earned it and redistributed to those who did nothing to earn it.
Social Justice Seeking Democratic Progressive Caucus
The Democratic Progressive Caucus (DPC) is an organization comprised of about sixty Members of Congress. It was founded in 1991 by Rep. Bernie Sanders, former socialist mayor of Burlington, VT and member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA describes itself as, the principle U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. ( www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org )
The DPC advances its communist agenda behind innocuous sounding phrases such as social and economic justice. The three core principles of The Progressive Promise are:
1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all. (Code for: Were going to eliminate poverty and suffering by taking away all of your possessions and redistributing them.)
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties. (Code for: Were going to eliminate all differences and pound everyone down to the lowest common denominator).
3. Promoting global peace and security. (Code for: Weyour Superiorswill finally feel secure and at peace once agendas 1-2 have been carried out to completion.) (Source: http://www.bernie.house.gov/document_display_text.asp?FileToConvert=/pc/index.asp)
In Pelosi Leader of Progressive Caucus, it was revealed: Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in World Net Daily, the Progressive Caucus established its own website. (WorldNetDaily.com, Nov 11, 2002)
On the website of the DSA it boldly declares: We are socialists Democracy and socialism go hand in hand wherever democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well. ( www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org ) The DSA increases its influence and power by networking with the Democratic Party to advance social justice programs and policies such as affirmative action and Stalinist hate crime laws. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. (ibid)
Following are brief descriptions of some of the social justice seeking subversives in the Democratic Progressive Caucus whose words and actions embrace the tenets of communism:
1. Barbara Lee (D-CA): former agent of the Black Panther leader and convicted killer, Huey Newton. Lee conspired with fellow communist, Cong. Ron Dellums, who used his authority to impede US foreign policy with regard to the Communist dictatorship of Grenada. ( www.DiscoverTheNetWork.org ) anti-American Communist who supports Americas enemies and has actively collaborated with them. (Radical Road Map, James H. Hansen, p.189)
2. Jim McDermott (D-WA): In 2002, McDermott and fellow Progressive Caucus member Rep. David Bonoir (D-Mich) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) traveled to Baghdad, where they publicly embraced Saddam Hussein and created propaganda on his behalf. ( www.DiscoverTheNetWork.org )
3. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill), who has accepted an award from the DSA once told one of its writers: The American people are not ideological; therefore, the way to go is to attack private power. (ibid)
4. John Conyers (D-MI): In 1981 Conyers co-hosted a delegation from the Soviet front World Peace Council, giving that group a forum in Congress. Conyers endorsed a Communist-led antiwar demonstration in Washington in 1983 and spoke at another Washington demonstration led by ANSWER in 2003. (Radical Road Maps, James H. Hansen, p 189)
5. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has taken part in CAIR (a radical group with ties to Mideast terrorist organizations) events including a Ramadan iftar hosted (on Capitol Hill) by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), and Barbara Lee (D-CA). (Kucinich Headlines Muslim Fundraiser, WorldNetDaily.com, Nov. 30, 2003)
The Constitution requires that members of Congress shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution. The Oath of Office sworn to by US Senators reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the U.S that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Very simply, if Democratic Progressive Caucus members truthfully believed in the Christian-Judeo God and likewise in our Constitution--the document conceived of by our Founders and not the Lefts living document nonsensethey wouldnt be social justice seeking communists. Rather, they would be Conservative Constitutionalists. That they are social justice seekers tells us that when they took their oath before God, they lied. Quite simplythey lied.
In Noah Websters 1828 edition of the American Dictionary of the English Language we find the correct term to apply to treacherous Democratic Progressives. That word is traitor, and the following definition is the one most likely referred to by our Founders. Traitor: One who violates allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to its enemy who aids an enemy in conquering his country.
Through use of Stalinist psycho-politics, Americas Communist Left imprisoned the consciences of Americans within psychic strait-jackets of political correctness. As long as we allow ourselves to be chained by political correctness, we will not be able to identify and speak openly about our enemies--those without, and those within. In the absence of freedom of conscience and of clear and honest speaking, we can neither formulate strategies for our safety nor deal appropriately with the treacherous deceivers operating amongst us who are colluding with our enemies and plotting to destroy our nation from within. The first order of business then, is for all Americans to break out of the psychic strait jackets of political correctness, thus allowing Truth to expose the treachery and treason at work in our nation.
Truth will set us free: And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32
And practically 50% of Americans fall for this nation destructing garbage.
and let's not forget those Men In Black (a la Supremes) who want to use International Law & Precedents to make up laws in the USA.
They are ignorant of the facts and the MSM dare not let the facts out. If they did only 12%-16% would support them and they would disappear politically.
What escapes my understanding is why our republican comrades do not label them and their policies as loudly and with great frequency as often as possible If that was the only thing they did the democrats would lose half their party as they only have gotten this far by hiding that fact.
57 MILLION VOTERS DID LAST ELECTION!!! It is not the Islamic jehadists that scares me. It is the 57 MILLION ENEMIES WITHIN that can vote. Plus the other 15-20 million ILLEGALS. Now, count your puny 61 million Bush votes and you lose by 11-15 MILLION VOTES when the illegals get voting rights, which they are going to do when AMANISTY IS VOTED IN BY THE STINKING LIBERAL U.S. CONGRESS!!!
I agree. After all, the Rats howl incessantly that our civil liberties are being eroded when it is clear to me that if they were in power they would be doing the same thing and saying it is just fine. After all, I just got a statement of my IRA account that informed me that the custodian is sending the value of my IRA to the GOVERNMENT. So what is this privacy thing the Rats are talking about. The big government they have erected over the last 70 years and continue to support unwaveringly, has all sorts of info on me.
So,yes, why don't the Pubbies get on the offensive and start making assertions about the Rats. At least with the info in this article they would be armed with the truth!
This past Sunday at my daughter's commencement (Doctor of Pharmacy Ohio Northern University, thank you very much.). The speaker was James Dicke of Crown Mfg. He made the statement that "Central Planning has been relagated to the ash heap of history".
I guess he missed Hillary Clinton's speech in Chicago (4/11/06) last month. She supports the Central Infrastructure Planning Agency.
Look up Radfest and the topics, participants, etc.
It is a communist/socialist propaganda fair. They work on methods to further their agenda across the US.
I am glad to see someone else noticed the socialists and their work.
Right on target!
underbyte:What escapes my understanding is why our republican comrades do not label them and their policies
Exactly! This is precisely what needs to be done. Imagine the impact if Americans read the following statements:
"American Communists Seek Impeachment of President Bush"
"Communist Democrat Party Pushes for Open Borders"
Redundant - Redundant - Redundant
///Chief among Backbone Campaign sponsoring organizations is the Progressive Democrats of America, who are committed to: dismantling the military industrial complex. (ibid)//
I am for this too - but not without dismantling the welfare state, including corp subsidy, as well.
The constitution called for a Navy but NEVER a standing Army, for that is the militia comprised of We the People.
The Progressive commie bastards, starting with TR's war against Spain, when in fact the Maine sank on her own, and his socalled trust busting that did the reverse.
What this article painfully leaves out is that the Progressive era push for bigger Govt to benefit Big Biz at taxpayer expense has been largely foisted upon us by progressives of BOTH parties going on 100 years now - just look at Ike & Nixon, and in some ways W.
The Reps never got their limited Govt mind's right until AU-H2O, followed by RWR, then Newt. All the rest might as well be Rats for the lack of good they've done us.
It was the nation's correct perception that the Reps represented Big Biz and the trusts, and is why Wilson, then FDR and the Rat party controlled both houses of Congress for 44 of the 48 yrs between 1932 & 1980 - 92% of the time.
The progressives made a good point of Big Biz getting Govt favors, except for their idiotic embrace of Marxist central planning to concentrate power in the FedGov in the guise of the genl welfare which increasingly became anything but genl as would be a battleship.
In fact - FA Hayek, Reagan & Thatcher's favorite economist, foretold that the collectivism he saw in early 30's Germany, would transform into tyranny as it had before in history. This is the guy FDR dissed in favor of Keynes. Smart Brits sh@tcanned him, and their economy took off way before ours did.
Bogus Rights - By Walter Williams
Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.
Contrast that vision of a right, to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.
If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.
Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.
Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of G-d. I'm guessing that when G-d gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress."
The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena.
No doubt about it, Hayek's The Road to Serfdom was explosively controversial from the beginning, especially his case that all forms of collectivism lead to tyranny. The book was first published on 10th March 1944 by Routledge in Britain.
Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase recalls that during Britain's July 1945 parliamentary election, Winston Churchill cited Hayek in his dramatic campaign speeches, to help show that a Labor Party win would mean tyranny. Labor Party leader Clement Atlee ridiculed Hayek and defeated Churchill. Soon afterwards, Atlee began seizing coal, steel, railroads, ports and other businesses, and began extending rationing to basic foods such as potatoes, even though war was over.
Opposition to Hayek's ideas was fierce in the United States, and a number of publishers rejected the book, but there were friends of freedom who worked wonders. Hayek authorized fellow Austrian economist Fritz Machlup, then working in Washington, to try finding an American publisher, but he was unsuccessful. He gave a copy of the Routledge page proofs to University of Chicago economics professor Aaron Director who met Hayek in 1943 when both were teaching at the London School of Economics. Director passed the page proofs to Frank Knight, founding father of the "Chicago School." Knight apparently gave them to William T. Couch, a classical liberal friend at the University of Chicago Press which agreed to publish the book on September 18, 1944. But since nobody expected it would sell many copies, the initial printing was only 2,000. It was a little wartime edition about 4- 7/8ths by 6-3/4 inches.
To help the book gain a hearing, the publishers asked John Chamberlain, respected book editor for Harper's magazine and a devout libertarian, to write a foreword. His name appeared prominently on the cover.
The initial reception was cool. On September 20, 1944, New York Times daily book reviewer Orville Prescott called it a "sad and angry little book."
But then New York Times economics editorial writer Henry Hazlitt weighed in with a home run: a 1,500 word blockbuster review on the front page of the Sunday New York Times Book Review, September 24, 1944. Hazlitt declared that "Friedrich Hayek has written one of the most important books of our generation." The University of Chicago Press ordered another printing. The book sold 22,000 copies by year-end and sold this much again by spring 1945.
Meanwhile, Reader's Digest editors DeWitt and Lila Acheson Wallace expressed interest in publishing an excerpt from the book, and the University of Chicago Press, eager to reach a popular audience, seems to have given away those rights for nothing. Hayek later remarked he never got a penny. In any case, The Road to Serfdom filled the first 20 pages of the April 1945 Reader's Digest under a banner headline drawn from Hazlitt's review: "One of the Most Important Books of Our Generation." This brought Hayek's story to about 8 million people in the U.S. alone. Subsequently, Book-of-the-Month Club distributed some 600,000 copies of a condensed edition.
Sales records are incomplete, but there were a good many more printings after that, and the book eventually sold at least 230,000 copies in the U.S. Hayek went on a U.S. lecture tour, including prestigious places like Harvard University, and he decided he rather liked being a lightning rod for freedom. He expressed his views in popular publications like the Chicago Sun, Boston Traveler and New York Times Magazine. He met many friends of freedom with whom he was to collaborate in later years. Three dozen friends joined him to found the international Mont Pelerin Society.
One of Hayek's friends, Milton Friedman, recalls that "From the time I first read some of his works, and even more from the time in the mid-1940s that I first met Friedrich Hayek, his powerful mind, his moral courage, his lucid and always principled exposition have helped to broaden and deepen my understanding of the meaning and the requisites of a free society."
Thanks for the ping. I'll think of some others who might like this article.
JP, C, CO and JH - for your information.
underbyte..we can start a new movement in the republican party where it is savvy to call your political opponent a "socialist" :)
Why not? If FR can topple Dan Rather, than it can begin a "truth in labeling" campaign.
One problem is that so many Republicans are not even slightly conservative. Not even a tinge. It's depressing.
Exposing America's Enemies (Part 2): Communist Progressive Democrats
Linda Kimball nails it here on every point once again!
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
""philman_36 Methinks, unbeknownst to thee, that thou hast answered thine own question.""
Noooo That was deliberate
Worth a read
Fundamentally, social justice is a process of elimination that results in sameness (egalitarianism). When social justice seekers speak of the need for equality, what they're really calling for is sameness."
The true purpose behind the 'gay" civil rights movement is described above---"SAMENESS" in the name of social jstice."
These articles and their related threads do get tiresome after awhile. Not so much because of the underlying article, which does make for an interesting read, but because of the predictable villification of all the usual suspects and the lack of strategic thought.
Just for a moment, and solely for the sake of polite discussion, let's just assume that the article is completely correct (something I don't agree with, but that doesn't really matter) What is the reaction of conservatives? More of the same. Semantics exercises. Vows to expose the Wicked Democrat Conspiracy (registered trademark), etc. Nothing new. Nothing fresh.
In my view, which I'm fairly certain will be attacked, dismissed, and ignored in short order, the problem that conservatives have found themselves in is a lack of strategic vision. Conservatives are becoming part of the background noise. The strategies for achieving a conservative future remain pretty much limited to working with the Republican party in some fashion to achieve that.
And those who have the temerity to suggest that only 42 years after the nomination of Sen. Goldwater, very little has actually been accomplished by the GOP are dismissed as malcontents and heretics. Or worse.
I wish I thought the numbers would be that small.
I have met Mr. Dicke of Crown Lift Truck fame several times over the years, and your daughter's class was fortunate in having him speak. Relegating Central Planning to the ash heap of history would be a wonderful goal for an aspiring presidential candidate. However, the gaggle of career congresscritters wouldn't stand for that.
I was thinking while reading your comments about my youngest daughter's commencement speaker at Miami of Ohio some years ago. The speaker foisted upon the graduates was a forgettable Clinton shill. Most of the parents got up and walked out until the speaker was finished. Our daughter told us that most of her class wanted to do the same.
Some, unlike you, are incapable of differentiating; therefore, Communist Progressive Democrats covers all bases.
I remember this Williams' column and agreed wholeheartedly, as usual, with him.
I noticed that as you "deconstructed" the article you spoke volubly about its (and the Conservatives) lack of something you term "fresh and new...strategic vision." For the sake of discussion, why don't you share with us your "new and fresh" "strategic vision"? It would seem you have something by way of 'strategy' to offer but for some strange reason have not shared it with us.
LJ..One problem is that so many Republicans are not even slightly conservative. Not even a tinge. It's depressing.
There are staunch Conservatives in the Nat'l Federation of Republican Assemblies, but because secular Rockefeller- RINO types have taken command of the Rep Party one would never know that they're there. I think that "we the people" must follow the lead of PA's Conservative grassroots activists and work to reclaim the Rep Party by "throwing the bums" out.
Your comment regarding Goldwater is dead on.
I bought his HB book "With No Apologies" recently for the whopping sum of $3.06 shipped on eBay.
Flipping through it last night, the title's of the last several chapters caught my eye.
I have half a mind to OCR them to post here, or maybe it's online already to post the link to.
I am curious what Freepers in general think of Barry Goldwater - do they credit him with helping Reagan zero in on his agenda of restoring Limited Govt & regaining military superiority lost under Carter?
Do they give him the credit for getting the Republican party away from it's progressive, adventurous, big Govt roots first fostered by TR, and by the big Govt Rockefellers ever since, like Ike and Nixon under Keynesian economic mythology?
Just what do Freepers think of Barry Goldwater today, do they even know enough about his message?
What is it they say?
The only good Commie is a ...
He's definitely the goods!
I emailed Kudlow to have him on more - to stomp that evil little bastard Krugman clone Reich with.
Steve Moore is too gentlemanly to do it, but Williams pulls no punches, which I greatly prefer!
Thanks. I always cringe at the term "social justice," especially when used by other Christians. Ick!
"Just what do Freepers think of Barry Goldwater today, do they even know enough about his message?"
I can only speak for myself. Senator Goldwater was a Patriot, a visionary, and his Presidential bid was well before it's time. His influence has proven lasting. He is the father of contemporary conservative political philosophy in the U.S., whether we choose to recognize him as such or not.
Senator Goldwater was also a real curmudgeon.
He's on my short list of great contemporary political leaders.
I've been saying that for years: call 'im what they REALLY are.
"It would seem you have something by way of 'strategy' to offer but for some strange reason have not shared it with us."
I do. One reason why I refrain from discussing my ideas about politics these days isn't so strange: I think conservatives are in denial. Things can't change and won't change until there's acknowledgement that there's a problem.
We'll see what happens this next election. Perhaps it will serve as a wake-up call to conservatives. But I doubt it.
For me to espouse ideas where they're not welcome is a waste of my time. Worse, my doing so just tends to get people agitated. I see no reason for it. Unfortunately, from time to time I forget that people don't really want to solve problems. They want to blame a convenient bogeyman and have others congratulate them on their analytical prowess.
I was pinged in on a morals pinglist and I made my point. In retrospect, I should have refrained and I didn't. My bad.
Time to go back to the religious threads. Thanks for the ping.
You've roused my curiosity. Please your share your solutions. My belief is that we---as a nation--need to retrace our steps and find our way back to the Christian-Judeo moral principles and precepts of the America of our founding.
Is this possible? I don't know. Perhaps we've fallen so far we'll never recover our former position.
"My belief is that we---as a nation--need to retrace our steps and find our way back to the Christian-Judeo moral principles and precepts of the America of our founding."
Amen, amen, amen.
"Is this possible? I don't know. Perhaps we've fallen so far we'll never recover our former position."
I don't know, either.
"You've roused my curiosity. Please your share your solutions."
You remind me of another FReeper. I've been challenged by a couple of folks to not hold my cards so close to my chest. And I'm thinking about being a little more forthcoming.
These threads are just not a very good place to engage in reasoned debate. Particularly on hot button topics like immigration and abortion. These are serious topics where new ideas and ways of thinking are needed, but from my perspective it just isn't worth the abuse I have to endure to discuss it.
Perhaps in a more private forum amongst certain FReepers. Lemme think about it.