Posted on 09/06/2007 5:38:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There are three reasons the left invented the term “progressive” (which is Marxist in origin):
1) It fits into their idea of historical inevitability. Marxism is inevitable, you know, so why fight it?
2) It wins over dimbulbs who latch onto anything if it seems “new” and “fashionable”. So ancient, barbarous practices such as promiscuity and abortion get repackaged as “progressive” and a lot of nitwits think they’re brand new.
3) It covers up for the fact that liberalism can’t create a civilization. Imagine a great civilization being built on wealth redistribution, appeasement of enemies, promiscuity, homosexuality, egalitarianism, and secularism. You can’t imagine it because it would never happen. Therefore, liberalism can never be traditional. So its proponents are forced to advertise it as new to provide political cover for its destructiveness.
I call BS on this label.
You pegged it. Next time someone makes this claim just ask them "How can you have a fiscally conservative government and still pay for all those government programs the social progressives you elect will enact?
If Fred can get ho-wood to support his oppenents, this would be even better. When ho-wood endorses a candidate, it's the political kiss of death for him or her. Even salami-baloney-george-clooney admitted it earlier this decade. One of clooless's own family members was unable to win a campaign, despite receiving a good dose of clooney's supposedly valuable ho-wood presence.
Receiving ho-wood endorsements is worst than meaningless: it's actually lethal.
Good points. Whenever somebody tells me their beliefs are progressive I like to tweak them by replying "You mean like cancer?"...
#####My hackles go up when I hear, “I’m fiscally conservative, but socially progressive.” Hello??? Socially “progressive” causes are fiscally irresponsible!#####
Yep!
With good reguard for our fellow Conservatives out in California and Massachusetts: Can you think of ANY better argument for ‘States Rights’ and secession than it would end their polution through federalism upon some of the more sane states in the West and Mid-West and South?
Add James Woods.
“socially progressive” is LA Timesspeak for “favors abortion of children.”
I agree. And while Fred wont pull the bulk of the Hollywood political establishment he will be backed by good people like Gary Sinise, Patricia Heaton, Tom Selleck and his common approach will draw out those in conservative Hollywood who otherwise would be keeping their mouths shut and quietly going about their business.
I don't remember it that way with all due respect...the older folks liked him and Nancy and I think Valenti supported him but the younger folks loathed him.
/s
sorry..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.